Slashdot Mirror


China Criticizes Google's "US Ties"

krou writes "State-run news agency Xinhua has attacked what it calls Google's 'intricate ties with the US government' amongst its high level officials, claiming that it's 'an open secret that some security experts in the Pentagon are from Google.' They have also accused the company of trying to change Chinese society by imposing American values on it. Xinhua said that 'One company's ambition to change China's internet rules will only prove to be ridiculous.' Google has denied the claims. Google spokeswoman Jessica Powell said that 'The decision to review our business in China was entirely Google's and Google's alone.'"

280 comments

  1. Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    that while some Internet users in certain Western countries may see the Internet as something which exists independently of society and is merely a medium through which two individuals may communicate, from the Chinese POV it is a part of society and therefore allowed to be controlled.

    To be totally honest, I agree with the Chinese POV, since $People \in Society$ and $Internetusers \subset Society$.

    1. Re:Let's not forget by ircmaxell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree with that POV. The internet is its own society which is free from cultural and geological borders. That's the power of the Internet. The fact that EVERYONE is equal, irregardless of their location, political beliefs, language, religion, etc, etc, etc makes it it's own society. When a country tries to limit or control the internet, it is either because they don't understand it, or they fear it. This is especially true in cultures of control such as China and Iran. They are afraid of the internet, because it gives people access to a truly free society. The failure here is that almost no government believes that the Internet is a sovereign society.

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    2. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      irregardless of their location

      Exactly!

    3. Re:Let's not forget by Teun · · Score: 2, Informative

      The fact that society (including the internet) can be controlled and is controlled is no excuse for western companies to cooperate with the Chinese version of control.
      I would go as far as to say a company that wants to be credible to their western customers can't possibly be compliant with present day Chinese restrictions re. freedom of information.
      It looks to me Google finds it difficult to console their 'Do no Evil' morality with the Chinese instructions for complete government control.

      Along the same line I'm very happy with the recent EU decision to outlaw export of Internet filtering technology to countries where it's used dumb down the general population.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:Let's not forget by mrclisdue · · Score: 1

      ibid

    5. Re:Let's not forget by sopssa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree with that POV. The internet is its own society which is free from cultural and geological borders. That's the power of the Internet. The fact that EVERYONE is equal, irregardless of their location, political beliefs, language, religion, etc, etc, etc makes it it's own society. When a country tries to limit or control the internet, it is either because they don't understand it, or they fear it. This is especially true in cultures of control such as China and Iran. They are afraid of the internet, because it gives people access to a truly free society. The failure here is that almost no government believes that the Internet is a sovereign society.

      Is this why US law like DMCA is imposed to me even while I don't live in US? Google removes results based on DMCA notices on all of their sites, not just google.com.

      China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?

    6. Re:Let's not forget by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      lots of politicians are 50+ years old (most). They don't want nor do they even try to understand technology.

      Those folks will need to die of old age before they put an effort in understanding the internet. So don't expect that to change soon.

    7. Re:Let's not forget by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Isn't Xinhua correct in this though? There's no lies - Google tried to change Chinese society and bring American values in it, just like is done in Iraq but only with military.

      This is nothing new, the same has been done with Hollywood and other mass culture for long time. Just play Civilization - you can spread your culture and slowly your enemies cities will want to join you.

    8. Re:Let's not forget by poetmatt · · Score: 4, Informative

      so let me get this straight: google, which is located in the us, is being complained about for having connections in the US? And this is coming from the chinese news, which is located in china, and has connections with China? ror.

    9. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, you hippie. The internet is a bunch of wires and peering agreements, no more, no less. You are not the internet or a part thereof. The internet is not a society. You may think of the people who use the internet as an international, maybe even transnational group, but people have to live somewhere and as long as that somewhere is controlled by a nation state, that nation state can control their internet access. There are very few truly global rules, but one of them is that sovereign nations can make their own rules governing their own country. There is no right for anyone to go to another country and tell them the local rules suck so he's going to ignore them. That will get you kicked out of the country, land you in jail or get you killed no matter where you try it. If Google wants to do business in China, it will have to do so following Chinese rules. The question is, does Google want to do business in China and should they.

    10. Re:Let's not forget by forand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not sure what your point is; both are horrible for the internet at large. Saying that China is doing something similar to something the USA is doing does not make either OK.

    11. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      USA tries to control the whole Internet.

      Well, we did fkn build it. If you don't like it, you can bring your own fkn ball next game.

    12. Re:Let's not forget by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google isn't the internet. Google is a US company, and it's subject to US laws. Nobody is stopping US citizens from visiting websites run by non-US companies, which would not be subject to US laws. In China, however, you would simply be prevented from viewing any site that was not controlled (explicitly, by law, or by some other agreement) by the Chinese government.

      The US is trying to control the world through treaties and trade agreements, not by web censorship.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    13. Re:Let's not forget by ubermiester · · Score: 1

      China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?

      First of all, the US is not trying to "control the internet". All it is doing (albeit with a heavy hand at the expense of consumers), is to control certain commercial transactions that, arguably, skirt the law. Stopping someone from downloading copies of a U2 album that they in no way paid for is in no way the same thing as trying to stop someone from reading about the Tienanmen Square protests or sending emails about democracy. How can you compare the two?

      And even if your point is that control of any kind is bad, are you suggesting that selling poached Ivory or distributing kiddie porn should be allowed as long as the transaction is completed online? Sounds like a principle without the application of common sense.

    14. Re:Let's not forget by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The internet is its own society which is free from cultural and geological borders.

      This video contains content from Sony Pictures, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

      WAS free. Past tense. And prepare for ACTA, this is only getting worse.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    15. Re:Let's not forget by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you think the US has never taken down a foreign website you are sadly mistaken.

    16. Re:Let's not forget by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You do realize that, although you're not in the US, Google does. If you don't want to be restricted by US laws, maybe you shouldn't use the services of a North-American company...

    17. Re:Let's not forget by denobug · · Score: 1, Insightful

      that while some Internet users in certain Western countries may see the Internet as something which exists independently of society and is merely a medium through which two individuals may communicate, from the Chinese POV it is a part of society and therefore allowed to be controlled.

      To be totally honest, I agree with the Chinese POV, since $People \in Society$ and $Internetusers \subset Society$.

      If you are agreeing with Chinese POV, why are you posting as AC? Don't you want to be monitored and controlled and being praised to be patriotic? The simple fact is that everyone online in China are subject to searches and lack of privacy. Any government or any special interest groups outside of the government with enough favors with the government can find you and harrass you. You have no protection when attempting to raise a different voice.

      The fact that you are posting as AC tells me you either don't understand what you are saying, or you are a hypocrite who don't practice nor believe what you just said.

    18. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Is this why US law like DMCA is imposed to me even while I don't live in US? Google removes results based on DMCA notices on all of their sites, not just google.com.

      China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?

      Let me point out one thing: It ain't the US that tries to control the internet but rather the businesses that are using US law. Add in the fact that Google is a US company, based in the US and subject to US law and you can understand why Google has to be careful when they are issued a DMCA notice. If you don't like it, no one is making you use Google.

    19. Re:Let's not forget by sopssa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The point is that both countries have their own view on what is allowed and what is not. The difference is that China only restricts it inside it's own country, while US tries to enforce their view all over the world (with ACTA too). It maybe doesn't make it OK, but in my view it's still a lot better when you aren't trying to enforce your views to people of other countries.

    20. Re:Let's not forget by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod this up!

      Despite the internet being community without boundaries, each individual is still part of a physical, bounded community, and is thus still subject to the physical community's rules, despite what many people seem to think.

    21. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with it too. It is disgusting how many countries the USA tries to impose their values upon.

    22. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I'm curious about is if google.cn will be censored when google puts an explanation of its absence on the front page.

    23. Re:Let's not forget by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Sorry, Google _is_. As you see, I'm not from the US either :|

    24. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are saying that local law should not apply to people on the internet? That means someone should be allowed to threaten to kill you and your entire family because the internet is its own society that shouldn't be controlled by government.

      If you don't think that should be allowed, then where are the laws of the internet? Who makes them and who enforces them?

    25. Re:Let's not forget by denobug · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not really. Xhinhua is politicizing the situation where Google is attempting to receive protection from it OWN government when being intruded upon. Why is it a bad thing for Google to ask NSA for security assistance when their high profile account is being hacked with possible traces to the Chinese government? I am not saying Chinese government has a hand in it but the suspicion should warrant Google to seek governmental help to pin point the issue and prevent additional attack from happening.

      Let's not forget Google is a US registered company with headquarter in California. Their stock is listed in US stock exchange. They pay taxes to US government. Seeking help and protection from your own government is well within their rights as a US company.

      Further I don't think China has any leg on the issue either since they actively help their own industries and private companies with ties. It's all just a Publicity Stunt to keep its own citizen from sympathizing Google by playing a patriotic card.

    26. Re:Let's not forget by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      So what is a good search engine these days with a more unfiltered internet?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    27. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      ror.

      lacist asshore!

    28. Re:Let's not forget by sopssa · · Score: 1

      But Google also maintains its own offices in many other countries. Should they work under US law or the local law? What about their websites, like google.se? Wouldn't it make more sense if the local Google companies would work under those countries laws?

    29. Re:Let's not forget by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?"
      Interesting comparison.
      I don't like the DMCA or the new treaty that Hollywood is getting the US government to push through. I think in this case the US government is putting the interests of certain companies over the rights of it's citizens.
      See the difference? I can criticize the US government without fear of them coming to my house.

      Yes the DMCA is crap law and needs to be repealed. Not because I think copyrighted material should be free to copy but because it throws the idea of due process out the window.
      That and it also throws the idea of fair use out the window. Frankly I think that if the law prevents me from making copies than it should FORCE the companies to replace at no cost the media forever if it fails.

      I do think that China has a right to have it's own laws and if Google is going to do business in China then it must follow those laws. So if they can not live with those laws it should leave.
      I don't think I would be happy doing business in China. Now the question is. Is Google doing this out of morality or not? I an skeptical about why Google is pulling out. I think they see doing business in China as more trouble than it is worth. I fear if Google had a %40 market share of Chinese search that they would be a little less out raged but I could be wrong.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    30. Re:Let's not forget by SQL+Error · · Score: 3, Insightful

      China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?

      China.

    31. Re:Let's not forget by Cimexus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not really. US law like DMCA is imposed on ~sites run by US individuals or companies~, who are subject to US law. DMCA doesn't apply to a sit running elsewhere. But it so happens that most popular sites are based in the US, or run by US companies (e.g. Google).

      Having said that, I agree that it is irritating. I particularly love the constant "sorry, this content is not available outside the US!" on Hulu/Pandora/many YouTube vids/etc/etc.

    32. Re:Let's not forget by Cimexus · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll +1 the grammar Nazi above, by acting as a helpful grammar Nazi myself.

      The word(s) you are looking for are 'regardless', or possibly 'irrespective'.

    33. Re:Let's not forget by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      I imagine (s)he's posting as AC because the opinion voiced is very much against the typical Slashdotter's opinion, and they don't want their karma (and pride) to be modded into oblivion.

    34. Re:Let's not forget by AnotherUsername · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is this why US law like DMCA is imposed to me even while I don't live in US? Google removes results based on DMCA notices on all of their sites, not just google.com.

      China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?

      So build your own search engine, open results entirely, and put it out for any to use. No one is stopping you. Well, unless you are in China.

      --
      I don't like Linux. This doesn't make me a troll.
    35. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because "denobug" is so much more public and non-anonymous. Give me a fucking break. You're the only hypocrite around here.

      Start posting using your full legal name, IP address, email, phone number and street address, then you can talk.

    36. Re:Let's not forget by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you think Google takes down websites then you are sadly mistaken. They are a search engine. Pulling a site from a privately owned and operated search engine is not the same thing as "taking down a website". It is not like every website has a god given right to be listed on Google. You violate Google's terms, and they are free to yank your site from their listings. Google is a company, they are not an official internationally sanctioned Internet authority.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    37. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er b$ll$cks sorry.

      The Internet is not free from cultural and geological borders AT ALL. Why are so many people so wishy washy about this. Everyone on the Internet expresses their own cultures and amplifies the values that they were brought up with. If I want to search for something in the English speaking world. I search for it in English and unless I tick the right box it will give me results from the UK only. If I want something from the German speaking world, I use German. When Abroad, it looks at my IP and automatically gives me a domain page according to the country I'm in. If I was in New Zealand I couldn't search for certain things because they have a country wide firewall.
      If I am an admin I can silence people from my forum. If I am part of the establishment, I can find out whos logging in where, even if you have a dynamic IP. Computers log everything!
      There is no special Internet society. Just the same old World as before, we're just better connected, thats all.

    38. Re:Let's not forget by sopssa · · Score: 1

      He said the US, which refers to the country, not Google.

    39. Re:Let's not forget by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't hold your breath. They said the same thing about the outdated US drug laws - "When all the Baby Boomers take charge, we will have a sensible drug policy in the US." Well, they have and I am still waiting. Seems the more things change the more they stay the same.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    40. Re:Let's not forget by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does it not strike you as ironic that if you tried to make the same statement in Chnina, but about the Chinese government, you would not have been allowed to? So which is really worse?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    41. Re:Let's not forget by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Well considering the context of the conversation, and considering the article is about Google and it ties to the US, it is a nice strawman then.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    42. Re:Let's not forget by superdave80 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And what website was taken down? And how exactly did the US enforce this take down in a country that it has no power over?

    43. Re:Let's not forget by geegel · · Score: 1

      Why the heck is this modded redundant? While I do not agree with anarchists, I do believe it to be a valid point of view. Remember, there is no -1 I Disagree modding.

      As for the dissociation between the physical act and the attached information transfer, I believe that things aren't this simple. Information transfer, although possible as an abstract, separate process is in reality tied to a physical infrastructure.

      --
      right...
    44. Re:Let's not forget by JoshHeitzman · · Score: 1

      Sounds like your okay with governments controlling the internet so long as it conforms to morals, but you don't realize that other people have morals different from yours in which copyright (and enforcing it) is immoral and blocking anti-social speech is moral.

      --
      Software Inventor
    45. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The previous message brought to you by the Chinese Government...

    46. Re:Let's not forget by SilasMortimer · · Score: 1

      China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?

      First of all, the US is not trying to "control the internet".

      Dude, a spade's a spade. Our government is absolutely trying to control the Internet. Everyone is. Microsoft is. Apple is. EFF is. The RIAA and ThePirateBay both are. I am. You are.

      The difference is the power to do so. The only reason the US government doesn't completely control the Internet at this stage and doesn't even attempt is that not all of the resources that go into making the Internet are in areas that the government can control. At the same time, the person you are replying to is also wrong. China can't control "[its] own Internet" because it doesn't have it's own Internet. Therefore, it's trying to control the Internet, period.

      The only logical way that China can have what it wants is to completely separate itself from the international network. That'd be expensive and create a really neat hacker subculture as a side effect, but that's not my problem. And in general, oppressing the Chinese for the good of the Chinese isn't Google's problem, either, however much they extremely want it and deserve the respect to have it. (I'm sure I don't need to explain the sarcasm in that previous statement, but I'll mention that it's there just in case.)

      All it is doing (albeit with a heavy hand at the expense of consumers), is to control certain commercial transactions that, arguably, skirt the law. Stopping someone from downloading copies of a U2 album that they in no way paid for is in no way the same thing as trying to stop someone from reading about the Tienanmen Square protests or sending emails about democracy. How can you compare the two?

      To be fair, you can compare the two because they're both dictated by ideology. You find one reasonable and the other unreasonable because you prescribe to one ideology and reject the other. That's the nature of the beast, though. Nothing the size of the Internet can exist with ideological struggles.

      And even if your point is that control of any kind is bad, are you suggesting that selling poached Ivory or distributing kiddie porn should be allowed as long as the transaction is completed online? Sounds like a principle without the application of common sense.

      Yes, in general, common sense says that there are two shades: black and white. Wiser people say that there are a bunch of shades of grey that people miss. Nuts like me look around confusedly and say things like, "what about blue?"

      As far as ivory, it can't be transmitted across the Internet, so it has no place in the discussion. As far as I know, it is perfectly legal for you and I to discuss an exchange wherein I give you poached ivory in person. It's once we meet that we're in trouble. For child pornography, it's against a common cultural more. I don't know of any established culture that would approve of it.

      --
      Omnes tuae crepidines sunt nobis sunt. Ascendo tuum!
    47. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For child pornography, it's against a common cultural more. I don't know of any established culture that would approve of it.

      Japan certainly borders on it, but anyway, the really scary thing is even a lot of european porn is "child" porn by puritanical american standards, despite featuring thoroughly postpubescent humans - it is biologically normal and expected to be attraced to postpubescents, america (and certain satellite states) is just fucked up.

    48. Re:Let's not forget by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      You do realize that, although you're not in the US, Google does. If you don't want to be restricted by US laws, maybe you shouldn't use the services of a North-American company...

      US laws aren't enforceable in all of North America, despite what the US government seems to want to happen.
      Canada and Mexico have out own laws, and are generally not pleased with the regular attempts of our common neighbor to impose their laws in our countries and on our citizens.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    49. Re:Let's not forget by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, they may well do significant damage to the internet before they die off.
      Then it will be to the next generation of politicians to undo the wrongs of the past. I'm not aware of that working well at anytime in history.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    50. Re:Let's not forget by SilasMortimer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Isn't Xinhua correct in this though? There's no lies - Google tried to change Chinese society and bring American values in it, just like is done in Iraq but only with military.

      Google did no such thing. Google provides a service and China wants to restrict it. Furthermore, it wants Google to take on the responsibility of restricting what China wants restricted. Even if the people at Google were comfortable with the restrictions, which they have a right not to be, the cost to them of trying to enforce the Chinese government's rules is prohibitive. Makes it overall a bit stupid for Google to agree to anything.

      And you're saying there are no lies. So you say that Google has ties to the government? Even if you're a conspiracy nut, look at recent history with regards to how the US government handles China. What will you see? We've kissed their asses. US politicians always stand strong on American principles... except when power is involved. This is why we don't recognize the Turkish genocide of Armenians and it's why the Chinese can trample whatever human rights it wants to even outside of their own country.

      This is nothing new, the same has been done with Hollywood and other mass culture for long time. Just play Civilization - you can spread your culture and slowly your enemies cities will want to join you.

      You make it difficult for me to defend the effects of computer and video games to people who say that they stunt people's critical thinking skills.

      --
      Omnes tuae crepidines sunt nobis sunt. Ascendo tuum!
    51. Re:Let's not forget by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      And China tried to change Google's culture and force them to do something against their ethics (and company slogan). Hypocrites.

    52. Re:Let's not forget by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Lots of people turn stupid when they have kids, thinking that they can protect them best by sheltering them from everything. That's nature. Which is part of why the more things change, the more they stay the same.

    53. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is trying to control the world through treaties, trade agreements and FORCE, not by web censorship.

    54. Re:Let's not forget by HeckRuler · · Score: 1
      Facebook is valued at what? $4 Billion? What would the value of Facebook be without anyone ever logging in?
      What is Google's revenue if no one ever searched for anything?
      Sound is vibration. You could say it's nothing more and nothing less, and you'd be technically right. But those vibrations can form music, speeches, and critical signals. If you're so short sighted to think that some wires and peering agreements can be nothing more then just that, then I'm going to side with the hippie.

      Also,

      There is no right for anyone to go to another country and tell them the local rules suck so he's going to ignore them.

      Bullshit. For the vast majority of history that would be the right of might. Or, if you want to take a more civilized spin on it, there is no right for anyone to tell a foreigner to stop ignoring the sucky local rules other then by might.

    55. Re:Let's not forget by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Is this why US law like DMCA is imposed to me even while I don't live in US? Google removes results based on DMCA notices on all of their sites, not just google.com.

      China tries to control it's own Internet. USA tries to control the whole Internet. Which one is worse?

      I agree that both are terrible. But I'd hardly equate take-down notices of, say, the latest Harry Potter novel to be equivalent to censoring Tiananmen Square. Google's China operations have to adhere to Chinese regulations as they operate in China. Google's main headquarters, however, is in the US. Are you really shocked that US law has a greater reach in their operations?

    56. Re:Let's not forget by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      that while some Internet users in certain Western countries may see the Internet as something which exists independently of society and is merely a medium through which two individuals may communicate, from the Chinese POV it is a part of society and therefore allowed to be controlled.

      To be totally honest, I agree with the Chinese POV, since $People \in Society$ and $Internetusers \subset Society$.

      Actually - the Chinese are right. In Western countries, we both value and allow two individuals the freedom to communicate.

    57. Re:Let's not forget by xtrafe · · Score: 1

      The internet is its own society which is free from cultural and geological borders.

      ...The failure here is that almost no government believes that the Internet is a sovereign society.

      [The internet] WAS free. Past tense. And prepare for ACTA, this is only getting worse.

      I like this analogy. Lets say the internet is some kind of territory fighting for its sovereignty. Speaking to the large number of software developers that hang around here: you and I would constitute frontline combatants in the Internet's guerilla army. We're a bunch of highly-trained soldiers fighting on our home territory against a horde of misguided interlopers that have little idea what they're getting themselves into.

      How many congresspeople and spoiled media moguls does it take to lob a piece of legislature like the DCMA, or dismantle an operation such as Napster? Then one of our 'specialists' like Bram Cohen, or the guys at the Pirate Bay, blow everything they've done to shit in short order. Every time some asshole has a greedy, inefficient, or nearsighted idea that the internet, as a people, do not want, an army of the most highly educated and intelligent people on the planet get straight to work at dismantling it. In fact, even beyond computer specialists, the number of intellectuals that are in favor of internet regulation is exceedingly small, so I'd say that the internet has the pick of the best that society has to offer fighting for it.

      It's not unlikely that this is a war of attrition. I wouldn't worry much, though. The Internet's army is filled with problem solvers; We're fighting against a bunch of 'consensus-builders'. I don't mean to belittle consensus-building (much), but when the virtual bullets start flying, I know which camp I'd like to be a part of. ...I guess what I'm saying is that it's lambs and lions, and you and I are the lions. I wouldn't be too worried. Now get to work.

    58. Re:Let's not forget by Minion+of+Eris · · Score: 1
      --
      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
    59. Re:Let's not forget by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons I decided long ago to never have kids. I like my thinking to remain logical and be unclouded by hysterical knee-jerk reactions concerning children. (Well, that and the fact I can do whatever I want whenever I want and I usually have the funds to do so.)

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    60. Re:Let's not forget by PerfectionLost · · Score: 1

      Google's official headquarters is actually in Deleware, like most large companies in the US.

    61. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, you know, go to websites that are not accessed through google. Nothing is stopping people from sending/posting links. People seem to have this concept that 'if it isn't accessed via major search engines, it isn't a website/on-the-web', which is frankly ridiculous.

    62. Re:Let's not forget by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Google isn't the internet.

      Yeah, exactly. The blue "e" thing on my desktop is the internet. (or at least, *one* of the internets)

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    63. Re:Let's not forget by ubermiester · · Score: 2, Insightful

      other people have morals different from yours in which copyright (and enforcing it) is immoral

      What? Who in the world believes that copyrighting one's own work is immoral? I know people who think the laws favor copyright holders too much, but I've never met someone who thinks copyright laws are inherently "immoral".

      What morality would disallow the creator of an original creation from controlling how that creation is distributed? Would you attempt to enforce such a principle by demanding that artists immediately publish everything they create without compensation? And even if you believe that it is in the best interest of "the people" that original content is in the public domain at the time of its creation, that is a matter of political-economy, not morals. But if you have some compelling moral argument against copyright protection - in principle, not in practice - then I'd be happy to hear it.

      The US has no interest in stopping you from publishing whatever you want. Go ahead and give it away if that's where your moral compass points you. All the US wants is to do is enforce it's copyright laws as they apply to content produced by its citizens. If other nations want to take that same approach (and most do), then that's their choice. If you don't want any content protected under copyright, then you're unaffected. If you want it, then you have to pay for it. Its that simple. Or do you believe that everyone should be able to listen to a U2 record for free?

      blocking anti-social speech is moral

      Well first thing I would ask is: What is anti-social speech? And more importantly, who defines it? If a govt wants to silence opposition to its policies, is anyone who speaks out "anti-social"? Or are you talking about child-porn? Because if you're talking about child-porn or cyber-bullying or whatever, then you're talking about crimes among individuals. But if you're talking about free speech issues like petitions or twittering about rallies, then you're not talking about "anti-social" speech, you're talking about political speech. And I think it has been proven over and over again that the dangers of allowing governments to suppress speech of any kind far outweighs the advantages to the society it is trying to "protect".

      In China, the govt has put in place an enormously powerful system of censorship to ostensibly control "anti-social" speech, but is in fact primarily a tool for controlling political speech. People can't see child porn very easily, but they also can't even see a picture of "tank man" (the guy who stood in front of a column of tanks in Tienanmen Sq). What is "anti-social" about political protest? Isn't that how the PRC was founded? They fought a war with the existing govt and won. Now they don't want the same thing to happen to them. China wants to enforce it's totalitarian system to protect those in power who know that if people are allowed to read and discuss anything they want, they would be thrown out on their asses. If you don't want to be censored, well...you're out of luck.

      What particular moral view do you claim the US is imposing upon you by asking you to pay for something that it's citizens are trying to sell?

    64. Re:Let's not forget by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The US doesn't censor the web? Good. Please give me a link to the entire ACTA treaty, and/or the working papers, and/or the discussions regarding ACTA.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    65. Re:Let's not forget by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Anarchism is not a valid point of view. Anarchism has never built anything. No matter how big, or how small a project, SOMEONE is always "in charge" and "responsible". From responsibility, authority is derived.

      Those who don't like authority of any kind are just deluded fools, who want to go back to a simpler life. Life in the caves was pretty simple. Tools were always available, free, for the taking. No voting, no taxes, no census takers.

      Of course, your life span was next to nothing, but life was simpler.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    66. Re:Let's not forget by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Local Google companies? They aren't affiliated companies. They are "Google". All one company. You can't have part of a company observing one set of laws, another part observing another set of laws, ad nauseum in however many countries they operate in.

      Perhaps you mistaken Google's foreign offices with something like Microsoft Partners, or something. There are all manner of companies around the world using MS branding to identify themselves, and what they do, but are NOT part of, or subject to, Microsoft's authority.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    67. Re:Let's not forget by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      <ircmaxell> The fact that EVERYONE is equal, irregardless of their location, political beliefs, language, religion, etc, etc, etc makes it it's own society.
      *** StikyPad sets mode: +b *!*@joomlaperformance.com
      *** ircmaxell was kicked from #theinternets by StikyPad (You were saying?)

    68. Re:Let's not forget by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      So many apologists for China here. And their message? Well the US does it too. I guess fighting for freedom everywhere is passé.

      Put aside that feeling of social guilt for just a second and think about true freedom for all humans. Now act on it.

    69. Re:Let's not forget by bomcha · · Score: 1

      It was google's idea to do business in China not the other way round...so your logic fails...

    70. Re:Let's not forget by ubermiester · · Score: 1

      Dude, a spade's a spade. Our government is absolutely trying to control the Internet. Everyone is. Microsoft is. Apple is. EFF is. The RIAA and ThePirateBay both are. I am. You are.

      Fair enough. But the US produces the bulk of the original, "protectable" content consumed on the web. In the post-WWII era, we have become a huge exporter of culture, entertainment and technology. Those exports are incredibly valuable and the US has every right to enforce the explicit contracts entered into by consumers of that content. You can't (legally) get a U2 album without entering into a contract with the seller. Part of that contract says you cannot redistribute it without U2's consent. If you don't like that deal, don't buy the U2 album. It's that simple. The US is simply trying to enforce it's own laws as they apply to distribution over a network it created and other people have started to use (an obvious understatement). Again, if someone wants to release their own content without copyright or whatever, the US is not forcing them to do otherwise. All it is doing is attempting to stop billions of dollars of piracy/theft around the world.

      To be fair, you can compare the two because they're both dictated by ideology.

      Perhaps in some very broad sense, it is a free-market/speech ideology against a totalitarian ideology. But cultural relativism is itself an ideology, not a "fact". If you believe that the PRC govt can oppress it's people because it belongs to a different culture, then you must also allow that the US has a culture of activism across borders in the name of "human rights". Why should China's relative claims be more valid than the US? Keep in mind that Relativism as a concept was invented by 60's academics who felt guilty thinking of developing nations as backwards. They knew that they couldn't claim that stoning women accused of adultery was "acceptable" by any modern human standards, but they also couldn't condemn it out of the seemingly legitimate desire to be "objective". As a result, they invented this concept of "we don't understand because we're not one of them". Bullshit. Relativism is an artifact of a particular point of view. It is not applicable to all points of view simultaneously, especially when the thing you're looking at is shared among them - namely, the Internet.

      And even if you stick with Relativism, if you use the internet, you are using (mostly) US technology to share information in way that was and is a product of US cultural identity. There's a reason China had to go so far to create its "great firewall". The technology upon which the internet is built was designed to be as transparent as possible because that's what US culture wanted. When you browse the web, you are using a product of the US culture of information exchange, free-speech, commerce, etc. To claim otherwise is to rewrite history.

    71. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting that you side with the "we've left the worldly restrictions behind" hippie argument, then acknowledge that might is the ultimate arbiter and still don't see how that is a contradiction. On the international scale, the world has slightly evolved to a fragile set of rules where nations recognize other nations' sovereignty. That's not written in stone, of course, but the US will not go to war with China over Google's censorship problems. Obviously China can censor the internet and kick Google out of the country without having to fear the "right of might" of another country. There's nothing the "internet" can do about it either. Wanna know why? Because in the end, the internet really is just a bunch of wires and peering agreements. The reality of the net is much more down to Earth than what the "right to communicate" people would like to believe. It exists because it is profitable. It is not the materialized will to freedom of a bunch of people with a broadband subscription.

    72. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I certainly believe copyright is immoral. Or rather, I believe it's only moral to do it in order to fight copyright law, much as my ancestors picked up enemy rifles to shoot the enemy (GPL et al.)

      > What morality would disallow the creator of an original creation from controlling how that creation is distributed

      Their creation is their copy. Only the physical exists. They have absolute control over before they release copies of it. If they don't want it copied further they shouldn't release it. My freedom of speech is more important than their "freedom" to rentseek.

      Copyright law gives them the power to control other copies which are not their physical property. This is why libertarians opppose copyright law - only a simpleton can support property law and imaginary "property" law at once. The two are incompatible, not complementary, as shown by Stephan Kinsella, Boldrin and Levine and others.

      http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/

    73. Re:Let's not forget by slashdotjunker · · Score: 1

      The internet is its own society which is free from cultural and geological borders.

      This video contains content from Sony Pictures, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

      WAS free. Past tense. And prepare for ACTA, this is only getting worse.

      The internet is not the Web. The internet is a set of standard protocols for delivering encoded information. The internet is free because it is prohibitively expensive to mechanically decode all transmitted information. Although it is certainly possible to decode transmitted information, especially if it was encoded mechanically.

      The Web suffers from this problem. It is a set of standard protocols for encoding information. Since the information has been encoded mechanically, it is trivial to decode it into meaningful content. And, decoded content and access control go together like milk and cookies. This has always been a danger looming over everything we've built. Censorship of the Web has been an inevitability.

    74. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the US produces the bulk of the original, "protectable" content consumed on the web.

      Ha. I don't know where you get that idea. Europe does. By the way, U2 are Irish, not american (though they operate from the netherlands (also in europe) for tax-dodging reasons).

      Perhaps in some very broad sense, it is a free-market/speech ideology against a totalitarian ideology.

      Note that copyright monopoly is completely incompatible with free markets by definition; if you're trying to say american copyright monopoly grants are totalitarian, then I agree. But don't try to pass off anticapitalist help-the-poor-starving-artists-who-couldn't-compete-in-a-free-market bullshit as american capitalism. They're everything that's wrong with america, not everything that's right.

      US technology to share information in way that was and is a product of US cultural identity.

      Ra Ra Ra, Amerikkka!

      Where was the web developed? Oh, that's right, CERN. Where's CERN? Europe. Socialistically, taxpayer funded.

      Yes, the yanks developed the ARPANet, military funded (itself a form of socialism in a way, and just as taxpayer funded), back before they sucked (point of critical suck was Diamond vs. Diehr in the early 1980s IIRC). But Europe has overtaken the USA in every way except warmongering.

    75. Re:Let's not forget by msgyrd · · Score: 1

      I don't believe politicians under 50 understand technology any better than their elders.

    76. Re:Let's not forget by jessejj · · Score: 1

      Just play Civilization - you can spread your culture and slowly your enemies cities will want to join you.

      I LOVE that game! My favourite technique is to spread my corporations everywhere and then use the UN to force the communist countries to adopt Environmentalism (i.e. not State Property) thus allowing my corporations to run free in their cities, giving me $$$ =D

    77. Re:Let's not forget by sopssa · · Score: 1

      They are registered companies and maintain offices in every country, authorized by and affiliated with Google, and not branding or anything like Microsoft Partners. Because they're registered companies in every country, they must obey those laws too. For example in Sweden they are "Google Sweden AB" and have same kind of naming scheme for companies in other countries.

    78. Re:Let's not forget by sopssa · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's stupid to replace to own post, but here is latest list of subsidiaries of Google Inc. Like you can see their jurisdiction is marked for every one of those countries, and they are actually established in them.

    79. Re:Let's not forget by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Huh? "Not publishing to the web" does not equate to "Censoring the web". If the ACTA document was up somewhere, but US citizens somehow couldn't access it, or if the US government shut down Wikileaks when they put it up, then that would be censorship.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    80. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's dumb. One is being pushed by the government (china), the other is being pushed by corporations and ignored and misunderstood by the government (us).

    81. Re:Let's not forget by xigxag · · Score: 1

      No, they're not headquartered in Delaware. You're thinking about where they were incorporated. That has nothing to do with their official HQ which is located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway in Mountain View, CA. I binged it!

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    82. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sopssa with his typical Eurotrash banter. Huhuhu America sucks cause I'm only paid 20K USD/year and they're capitalist dogs.

    83. Re:Let's not forget by SilasMortimer · · Score: 1
      Sigh.

      Yes, yes. You're either with us or against us. I'm a pinko. Careful consideration is for pussies.

      The term "ideologue" has negative connotations, but all it means is "an advocate of some ideology". There is nothing about ignoring how everyone else looks at things. Therefore, I am an ideologue, as well as a patriotic American. However, excuse me if I don't take patriotism to the point of nationalism (defined as "the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other").

      To be fair, you can compare the two because they're both dictated by ideology.

      Perhaps in some very broad sense, it is a free-market/speech ideology against a totalitarian ideology.

      A "broad sense"? It seems to be exactly that to me.

      But cultural relativism is itself an ideology, not a "fact". If you believe that the PRC govt can oppress it's people because it belongs to a different culture, then you must also allow that the US has a culture of activism across borders in the name of "human rights". Why should China's relative claims be more valid than the US?

      Moral relativism (to which I will assume from this point on you were referring) is not an ideology, it's a position, one that may be part of one's ideology. Actually, there's not just one version of moral relativism. And it's interesting that you should accuse me of it when I gave no evidence of being a moral relativist. I am, but that won't make sense to you as you don't know what moral relativism is.

      Keep in mind that Relativism as a concept was invented by 60's academics who felt guilty thinking of developing nations as backwards.

      Could I have a reference, please? Wikipedia tells me a different story, but I'll allow that this is no guarantee of accuracy.

      They knew that they couldn't claim that stoning women accused of adultery was "acceptable" by any modern human standards, but they also couldn't condemn it out of the seemingly legitimate desire to be "objective". As a result, they invented this concept of "we don't understand because we're not one of them". Bullshit. Relativism is an artifact of a particular point of view. It is not applicable to all points of view simultaneously, especially when the thing you're looking at is shared among them - namely, the Internet.

      I don't quite understand some of the above, but I'll take a crack at what I do understand.

      Going back to the Wikipedia article, I read the entire history section. There is no mention of academics from the 60's who wanted a sneaky way of calling the act of stoning adulterers "acceptable". In fact, the latest date mentioned in that section is 1958, the year of death for an advocate of something called "ethical intuition" (something you might want to look into, though it might be simpler to stick to ethnocentrism). According to that history section, "[m]oral relativism encompasses views and arguments that people in various cultures have held over several thousand years."

      And here are the three types of moral relativism, jacked, code and all, from Wikipedia:

      • Descriptive relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise.
      • Meta-ethical relativism, on the other hand, is the semantic and epistemic position that all moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition.
      • Normative relativism, further still, is the prescriptive or normative position that as there is no universal moral standard by which to judge others, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when it runs counter to our personal or cultural moral stand
      --
      Omnes tuae crepidines sunt nobis sunt. Ascendo tuum!
    84. Re:Let's not forget by JoshHeitzman · · Score: 1

      What? Who in the world believes that copyrighting one's own work is immoral? I know people who think the laws favor copyright holders too much, but I've never met someone who thinks copyright laws are inherently "immoral".

      People who believe it is immoral to monopolize ideas.

      --
      Software Inventor
    85. Re:Let's not forget by JoshHeitzman · · Score: 1

      Well first thing I would ask is: What is anti-social speech? And more importantly, who defines it? If a govt wants to silence opposition to its policies, is anyone who speaks out "anti-social"? Or are you talking about child-porn? Because if you're talking about child-porn or cyber-bullying or whatever, then you're talking about crimes among individuals. But if you're talking about free speech issues like petitions or twittering about rallies, then you're not talking about "anti-social" speech, you're talking about political speech. And I think it has been proven over and over again that the dangers of allowing governments to suppress speech of any kind far outweighs the advantages to the society it is trying to "protect". In China, the govt has put in place an enormously powerful system of censorship to ostensibly control "anti-social" speech, but is in fact primarily a tool for controlling political speech. People can't see child porn very easily, but they also can't even see a picture of "tank man" (the guy who stood in front of a column of tanks in Tienanmen Sq). What is "anti-social" about political protest? Isn't that how the PRC was founded? They fought a war with the existing govt and won. Now they don't want the same thing to happen to them. China wants to enforce it's totalitarian system to protect those in power who know that if people are allowed to read and discuss anything they want, they would be thrown out on their asses. If you don't want to be censored, well...you're out of luck.

      Ever heard the saying "people get the government they deserve". Your statements above are premised on the assumption that government is separate from society rather then being a part of it. As the authoritarian part of a society, government is the authority on what is anti-social (i.e. against society). What particular moral view do you claim the US is imposing upon you by asking you to pay for something that it's citizens are trying to sell?

      The moral view that they have the right to deny the idea to you, through the use of force, unless you pay them for the use of the idea.

      --
      Software Inventor
    86. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who believe it is immoral to monopolize ideas.

      You realize that copyright has nothing to do with ideas, right? It's about commerce. If I write a book about frogs, you can use the information in that book however you want, including writing your own book about frogs. The only thing you can't do is try to resell the original work as if it were your own (otherwise known as plagiarism). Similarly, if I write a song, you can sing it as much as you want, but you can't sell a recording of it. If I make a movie, you can watch it on DVD, talk to your friends about it, and even write a book about it, but you can't make a copy of the DVD and sell it.

      Copyright has two words in it: copy and right. It means that only the holder of the copy-right has the "right" to make and sell "copies" of the original work. That does not mean you don't have to right to use the ideas contained in that work for non-commercial reasons.

      Furthermore, there's something called "fair use", which allows people to make and sell derivative works like parodies (think Saturday Night Live or MAD magazine), which are clearly based on the original, but are given special rights because of the nature of free-speech.

      I think your objection to the idea of copyright is based on a misguided notion that one can copyright an idea. You can't. The only thing you can copyright is a "work" of art.

    87. Re:Let's not forget by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I've got a 15 month old, I just don't buy into the bullshit ;) He's worth everything I've sacrificed by having him, and I wouldn't trade him for the world.

    88. Re:Let's not forget by Meski · · Score: 1

      An open secret

      . My tautology / oxymoron alert is going off. (yes, I use one alert to detect them both)

    89. Re:Let's not forget by PerfectionLost · · Score: 1

      Your signature would be better if it read:

      There are 10 kinds of people out there, those that get it, and those that don't.

    90. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes. You're either with us or against us. I'm a pinko. Careful consideration is for pussies.

      At what point did I say any of those things??? This is not an issue of nationalism. This is not an issue of block-headed jingoism. This is a matter of perspective. You have yours and I have mine. I did not call you names, so do not imply that I did. Frankly your attitude is far more condescending than my own. Your claim to be a "shades of gray" guy is undermined by your attempt to paint me as a rabid nationalist telling you to love it or leave it when i did no such thing.

      excuse me if I don't take patriotism to the point of nationalism (defined as "the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other").

      Again, I am no nationalist, and I am certainly not of the opinion that any culture is inherently superior to any other. Painting my argument in that way diminishes your self-described position on the moral high-ground. I am an advocate for a particular point of view, and that point of view happens to coincide with the interests of the culture in which I live. What a surprise. And if I disagree with other points of view, that does not imply any lack of respect or understanding. I simply disagree. If you disagree with me, I expect you to say so, but leave out the ad hominum attacks.

      Perhaps in some very broad sense, it is a free-market/speech ideology against a totalitarian ideology.

      A "broad sense"? It seems to be exactly that to me.

      My point was that while one can claim that the Chinese govt is acting out of some pure ideology when it suppresses speech, reality points to a very different situation. There is very little in China right now that resembles Mao's, Lenin's or Marx's vision of a modern communist state. They are rapidly acquiring wealth by exploiting their workers, enriching a few at the expense of the peasant class. They are moving towards a static, technocratic, industrial-based system that Mao would have claimed was entrenched and corrupt (which it does seem to be), and would have encouraged another periodic revolution to purge the bourgeoisie. What does any of this have to do with ideology? Nothing. It has to do with power (growth buys acquiescence), and money (money grants power). They are not building an agrarian workers paradise. They are building a slave state in which a few people control all of the power and a few more control all of the money. They are, in effect, a 19th century US without any of the democratic checks against power that mitigated the effect of the robber barons (in China, the robber barons ARE the govt).

      Is what I'm saying jingoistic? No, because I'm not even mentioning the US in any of this (except to say that the US had similar problems early in its own development as an industrial power). What I am doing is using careful consideration (to whatever degree I am capable given my limited contact with native Chinese) to formulate an opinion about a political culture as it relates to my own in the midst of a growing "clash of civilizations".

      Moral relativism ... is not an ideology, it's a position

      Actually I was talking about cultural relativism, a concept developed in the 30's and 40's by Franz Boas, and later (during the 1950's and 1960's) spread throughout academia by his acolytes in American universities. And it is funny that you mention that you consider it a "position", as that pesky Wikipedia says this about that:

      But, according to Marcus and Fischer, when the principle of cultural relativism was popularized after World War II, it came to be understood "more as a doctrine, or position, than as a method." As a consequence, people misinterpreted cultural relativism to mean that all cultures are both

    91. Re:Let's not forget by dragisha · · Score: 1

      Everyone is not equal and every barely intellligent person is aware of it. Economically, intelectually, socially, whateverally.
      People who claim equality is really frontend value of almost any ruling elite are simply keeping their heads in sand.
      Of course Google promotes American values, it is an American company working in concert with American laws. No problem with this, only a truth to accept. Whoever does not like it is free to select another search/mail/whatever for her use.

      --
      http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
    92. Re:Let's not forget by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Oh, all right, a company based in the US. It's common to associate "North-America" with the USA, at least here in Europe. Doesn't mean we don't know about Canada and Mexico.

    93. Re:Let's not forget by HeckRuler · · Score: 1
      Fucking coward
      There is no contradiction and your strawman is made of fail. There is no transcendence, the internet does indeed exist on the wired and servers here in good 'ol reality. But the internet is more then just some scrap copper.

      Ok, perfect example:

      Obviously China can censor the internet and kick Google out of the country without having to fear the "right of might" of another country. There's nothing the "internet" can do about it either.

      China can try to censor the internet. A significant percentage of people in China will tunnel through the great firewall and connect to the internet on the whole. Duh. If you think that's untrue in the slightest then you are delusional. They will do this with tools and help from people on the internet. All this will occur, GASP, on wires! Be amazed and welcome to the world of tomorrow!

    94. Re:Let's not forget by icebraining · · Score: 1

      That didn't help Shell, which was trialed in a US court for the violations of human rights perpetrated by one of its Nigerian subsidiaries. There are federal laws that allow courts to prosecute US companies for crimes in foreign countries, and they probably include subsidiaries too (seen as they're controlled by the main US company).

      But IANAL, so don't take my word for it. Maybe Google just doesn't want to oppose those companies, even if they're legal.

      Anyway, if you don't want to be subject to the DMCA in you searches, use a 'real' European search engine.

    95. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is trying to control the world through treaties and trade agreements, not by web censorship.

      No they do it through lies, deceit, and with force. Ask any Native American. Same game as 500 years ago just in a different place and different tribes.

    96. Re:Let's not forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can someone explain "irregardless" to me?
      seems to me 2 negations destroy each other ...

    97. Re:Let's not forget by Graham+J+-+XVI · · Score: 1

      What makes one worse than the other isn't the reach of the censorship but the type of information being censored. I hate Big Content as much as the next guy but I can much more easily accept that they want to stop what they perceive to be copyright violations globally than China's blocking of historical facts and muting of dissidents. Let's call a spade a spade here, at least in the US you can easily find out about the shitty things the US has done in the past.

  2. Can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They have also accused the company of trying to change Chinese society by imposing American values on it

    When Chinese manufacturing firms outsource their core labor to the US then that might be true.

    1. Re:Can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If country A allows country B to do their labour for them, then that labour cannot be important enough to A so as to ensure it is done in A. The very fact that B was allowed to do it at all shows that A does not care who does it.

    2. Re:Can't be by WindowlessView · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bah. As if in the US's case the "country" has anything to say about it. China has some notion of "country" and keeps its companies aware of it. The US is owned lock, stock and barrel by corporations who throw around terms like country and patriotism when it is convenient for them - usually when they need some cannon fodder and tax payer funding to defend or acquire what is in their corporate interest.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    3. Re:Can't be by msoftsucks · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not what is happening here. What's really happening is that the last 12 years of giving the rich tax breaks and giving them free money has caused them to be even more greedy. Instead of reinvesting that money in America, they fired all their American workers and closed down the American factories and opened new ones in China. They started off saying that only the low-skilled work will be moved, to where they are now moving engineering and higher level skills. And they are trying to hide that they are doing this. Just look at IBM recently saying that they will stop reporting employee levels by country. The rich don't care if they destablize America and get a little dirty working with a dictatorship because the were already dirty making their money in the US. The movement of jobs doesn't indicate that people don't care about these jobs, it shows that the rich have no allegance to any country and are killing America for greed. Plain and simple.

      --
      Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
      Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
    4. Re:Can't be by somersault · · Score: 1

      That's some !impeccable logic right there.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Simply the tax burden in this country is so high as to make the low-skilled employees unable to offer their labor at a competitive price. Someone in a third-world country can work for a year for what someone in the US will pay in taxes on their food in a month.

      I agree that manufacturing decline in the US is a serious concern but the answer is not to hose the corporations. Do that and the foreign corporations will only kick *their* ass too and then the US has nothing. The answer is to decrease the tax burden. But that's not going to happen (c.f. yesterday). Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

    6. Re:Can't be by DarKnyht · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you have a 401K, stocks, or any other investment account then you might want to reread your statement with "me" instead of "them". The fact is most middle-class Americans have investments in these mega-corporations and profit from their "greed".

      I would propose that in fact, it is this ever more difficult quest to show stock-holder gains that lead to these things that you hate so much. However if a company doesn't do this things, then the stockholders sue saying that the CEO's were not doing their best to maximize profits.

      --
      Voting them all out of office, now that's change I can believe in.
    7. Re:Can't be by WindowlessView · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet again proving that, alone, a broadband connection in the basement is insufficient to connect people with reality.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    8. Re:Can't be by WindowlessView · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > you might want to reread your statement with "me" instead of "them".

      Most people do. Here is what they see about financial holdings in the US:

      Top 1% owns 43%

      Next 19% owns 50%

      Bottom 80% owns 7%

      Most people see no "me" in those statements.

      > However if a company doesn't do this things, then the stockholders sue saying that the CEO's were not doing their best to maximize profits.

      A situation which could be remedied by changes to some laws. More importantly would be getting Wall Street off companies backs so they can plan more than 3 months out. The latter has less to do maximizing corporate profits than the Street's own interests, profits, and bonuses.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    9. Re:Can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a 401K, stocks, or any other investment account then you might want to reread your statement with "me" instead of "them". The fact is most middle-class Americans have investments in these mega-corporations and profit from their "greed".

      You mean that ever-shrinking middle class who will soon disappear because of the tactics cited by the grandparent?

      You've been gutshot. Would you like to play again?

    10. Re:Can't be by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      There is a guy on the corner selling pencils. I think he is hiring.

    11. Re:Can't be by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      China is definitely not a Democracy, but you need to read at least a little something about Chinese politics if you think it's a "dictatorship".

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    12. Re:Can't be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      giving them free money has caused them to be even more greedy

      Well, there is two things you can do with money: waste it or get more. Celebrity sites would tell you how it was wasted, business oriented sites tell you how it was reinvested.

      They invest their money in more countries than America, largely because America isn't the best at everything. As the chumby videos can attest, China has some remarkably skilled low-skill workers. Other countries have populations that are better-educated than their American counterparts. IBM stopping reporting employee levels is likely a political move; they want to compete via technical skill, not workforce.

      The rich love their children too.

  3. Google is Big Brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    People who think Google is doing that for human rights are naive.

    It is like people who are thinking USA went to Irak for the weapons of mass destructions....

    1. Re:Google is Big Brother by dazjorz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, or like people who think the moon landing actually happened... Heh, those idiots.

  4. Well, yeah. by Carik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Of course Google is trying to impose "American Values" on China. As it stands, they can't gain enough power to control things there. If China becomes more like America, then Google (and other companies) will have a bigger say in the government, and will be able to make more money.

    Is it a surprise to anyone that that's what they're trying to do?

    1. Re:Well, yeah. by krou · · Score: 0, Troll

      Modded to 0 troll after having 5 insightful? What the hell? Nice to see modding being used to stifle debate.

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    2. Re:Well, yeah. by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course Google is trying to impose "American Values" on China. As it stands, they can't gain enough power to control things there. If China becomes more like America, then Google (and other companies) will have a bigger say in the government, and will be able to make more money.

      Yes, obviously. It can't possibly have anything to do with Google's value coming from allowing people access to information and Chinese government's power coming from denying people access to information. Clearly, this is not about Chinese government wanting to keep its Ministry of Truth running and Google being a threat to that, but instead it's about Google trying to control Chinese government.

      I guess every puppetmaster's worst nightmare is for the strings to get cut...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:Well, yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Karma is a fickle bitch.

    4. Re:Well, yeah. by Ephemeriis · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Of course Google is trying to impose "American Values" on China. As it stands, they can't gain enough power to control things there. If China becomes more like America, then Google (and other companies) will have a bigger say in the government, and will be able to make more money.

      Yes, obviously. It can't possibly have anything to do with Google's value coming from allowing people access to information and Chinese government's power coming from denying people access to information.

      Yes, Google's value comes from allowing people access to information. And their revenue comes from the ads they show. And folks buy ads on Google because of the eyes they bring. And Google's got lots of eyes on its page because of its value.

      So, ultimately, allowing people access to information earns Google money.

      You can talk about doing no evil and information wanting to be free and whatever else... But, as a publicly traded company, Google's primary interest is making money. So of course they're interested in changing Chinese culture, as much as possible, to earn themselves more money.

      We here in the West think that free and open access to information is a good thing, so we view Google's actions as altruistic to a certain degree. In China, free and open access to information is viewed as dangerous, so they view Google's actions as nothing more than an attempt to change their culture purely to make money.

      Clearly, this is not about Chinese government wanting to keep its Ministry of Truth running and Google being a threat to that, but instead it's about Google trying to control Chinese government.

      I guess every puppetmaster's worst nightmare is for the strings to get cut...

      Since when does Google, or the United States, get to decide how China is governed?

      Granted, from my standpoint, things look pretty oppressive over there. I'm not just talking about their information security policies either... There's plenty of human rights issues. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live there.

      But isn't it up to the Chinese people to decide how they want to be governed?

      Yes, to my eyes over here in the West, they look like they're being oppressed. But how do the folks in China feel? Are they unhappy enough to actually rebel against the government and create something new?

      But the government has all the tanks and guns and stuff! Surely any attempt at revolution would just fail utterly, right? We ought to roll in there with our tanks and guns and put in a shiny new democracy, right?

      --
      "Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
    5. Re:Well, yeah. by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      But isn't it up to the Chinese people to decide how they want to be governed?

      No.

    6. Re:Well, yeah. by Carik · · Score: 1

      I honestly can't tell... was this meant to disagree with me?

      Regardless of that... I doubt that, as a company, Google really cares about Chinese politics as an abstract. What they care about, as a company, is making money. Part of that means maintaining an image, but mostly it means being able to do what they set out to do, which is provide some services in exchange for money. Where Google does care about Chinese politics is in the specific: if the Chinese government insists on having Google censor results, Google makes less money and has their image tarnished, which causes them to make less money.

      Google didn't get to be the best search engine around because of ideology. They got to be the best because they wanted to make money. Well, OK... maybe that's an ideology too... but it wasn't some sort of "information wants to be free" kind of thing. It was a "there aren't any great search engines out there, and we can build one. Let's do it and get rich" kind of thing.

    7. Re:Well, yeah. by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So of course they're interested in changing Chinese culture, as much as possible, to earn themselves more money.

      Um, no. They're undermining Chinese dictatorship's ability to keep its people in the dark. It has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with someone being scared of losing his power.

      We here in the West think that free and open access to information is a good thing, so we view Google's actions as altruistic to a certain degree. In China, free and open access to information is viewed as dangerous, so they view Google's actions as nothing more than an attempt to change their culture purely to make money.

      Is viewed as dangerous by whom? The regular Chinese? I doubt that, and even if it was, why should I listen to someone who's opinion is based on the lies he's been told? I shouldn't, I should show that poor bastard the truth, thus setting him free to form opinions based on actual facts rather than party propaganda.

      Or is it the Chinese government which views free access to information dangerous? Now why is that? Do they perhaps think that the regular Chinese - indeed, the very Chinese culture - would condemn them if they knew the truth of their activities?

      But isn't it up to the Chinese people to decide how they want to be governed?

      I couldn't agree more. It's truly a pity that the Chinese government disagrees, and makes panicked accusations against Google for attempting to give them this power.

      Yes, to my eyes over here in the West, they look like they're being oppressed. But how do the folks in China feel? Are they unhappy enough to actually rebel against the government and create something new?

      Why no, the Chinese people know that they are citizens of the most glorious, free and prosperous nation on Earth, just like North Koreans are and Soviet citizens were! Any information saying anything else is dangerous, contagious propaganda from eeeeevil Western corporations - but thankfully the Chinese officials are always ready to prevent their citizens from seeing such vile lies and to re-educate anyone who has!

      But the government has all the tanks and guns and stuff! Surely any attempt at revolution would just fail utterly, right? We ought to roll in there with our tanks and guns and put in a shiny new democracy, right?

      No, I say let the Chinese people free access to information, at which point they can decide if their current leaders are ruling in accordance to the values of Chinese people and culture. Based on said leaders reaction, I'd guess the answer would be a Big No.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:Well, yeah. by Stradivarius · · Score: 1

      Since when does Google, or the United States, get to decide how China is governed?

      They don't. But neither do they need to aid and abet acts by the Chinese government that they feel are immoral (i.e. censorship).

      But isn't it up to the Chinese people to decide how they want to be governed?

      I believe everyone in the West would like the Chinese people to decide how they are governed. Unfortunately the people do not decide - they are currently ruled by a dictatorship. When the Communist Party stops using force to crush dissenting views within their own country, and allows competing parties to form and run for election to office, then the Chinese people will be able to decide what level, if any, of censorship they feel is appropriate for their country.

      But no people is deciding anything for itself when a dictatorship imprisons people for dissent, when the dictatorship uses tanks to suppress peaceful protests, or when censorship is used to deny the people the information needed to make an informed decision.

      And you know, maybe if the Chinese were given these basic human rights, they might still choose some censorship. That would be their sovereign right. But let's not pretend that a people can truly consent to such censorship when dissent will land you in jail, or worse.

    9. Re:Well, yeah. by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's their choice on what they want.
      Right now it's not their choice on what they get

    10. Re:Well, yeah. by dragisha · · Score: 1

      Someone can say that "US government power comes from ridiculing true information", for example. It is always eye of beholder, and it's highly politically influenced.
      I don't approve of any overt political influences in everyday life, not Chinese nor American, but they are facts of life. State propaganda is what keeps countries content and safe. It's pity how smart people do not see through it.

      --
      http://opencm3.net, http://www.nongnu.org/gm2/
  5. Good grief! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Funny

    China is taking its lead from North Korea on the propaganda front?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Good grief! by chthon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, moderated funny...

      But seeing that the North Korean invasion was done with massive help of China, it is more that North Korea learned the art of propaganda from the Chinese.

      Didn't the Chinese call Tibet a dictatorial theocracy before they invaded^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hliberated it ?

      Well, they have had 3000 years to perfect the art of lying^H^H^H^H^Hpropaganda^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiplomacy.

    2. Re:Good grief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Nah, more like little children who's egos are hurt...

      Google: Let's play, here, I brought a ball.
      China: Cool! *plays with ball, then hits Google*
      Google: Hey, that was mean! I'm taking my ball and going home!
      China: Oh? Oh yeah? That's fine! I didn't want your stinking ball! It's a stinky ball! I bet your mom chose it, cause adults aren't cool, and it's an ugly ball!
      Google: No she didn't! It's my ball!

      Maybe accidental propaganda, but this is mostly posturing to avoid an ego loss because they chased the biggest search provider to the rest of the world, the world they so desperately want to be respected by, out of their country.

    3. Re:Good grief! by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Xinhua is state run, so accusing a google of being a puppet of the government is kind of silly. Anyways, Chinese propaganda used to be a lot like the USSR's Pravda or KNCA today, but it's not quite that extreme anymore. That probably makes it more effective. I mean, don't people begin to catch on after 50 years of weekly "the west will experience nuclear armageddon at our hands" rants?

      "The matchless fighting spirit of the leader, who continued the forced march of high intensity to vibrant hard-fought fields for an upsurge throughout the year, burning his heart with noble love of his country and fellow people, gave free rein to the mental strength of all the service personnel and people and worked world-startling miracles across the country." -- KCNA, http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201001/news01/20100101-08ee.html

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    4. Re:Good grief! by teg · · Score: 1

      Didn't the Chinese call Tibet a dictatorial theocracy before they invaded^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hliberated it ?

      Calling for China to cease their occupation and Chinesification of Tibet doesn't make the above claim untrue. Religious rule and serfdom doesn't exactly make it good place even before the occupation. That the current situation is bad, doesn't make the past good.

    5. Re:Good grief! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is the ideological enemy of the free world....just like No Korea...remember the Korean war? Stop buying Chinese people you are fueling your enemies economy....

    6. Re:Good grief! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      No, of course it doesn't. But if you go by the Wilsonian Doctrine, the Tibetans were a linguistically and ethnically separate people who had experienced only very brief interludes of meaningful Chinese rule prior to the 1950 invasion, certainly deserved their own state. It would be like Russia trying to retake Poland because, over the centuries, it's managed to exert its control over large parts of the area at various periods.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. um wot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    wots, uh... the deal?

    1. Re:um wot? by kubitus · · Score: 1
      the deal might be:

      you let me spy - and I let the US spy links intact!

  7. 4 Months ago... by Drethon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    US Criticizes Google's 'Chinese Ties'

    At least thats how it seems. Can't please everyone so its better to do what feels right for you (for most companies what feels right seems to be what is most profitable).

    1. Re:4 Months ago... by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      US Criticizes Google's 'Chinese Ties'

      Well in their defense, almost everything is made in China, including ties. I think their 'casual' dress policy is provides enough intent that the "Dont be evil" policy is still applicable.

    2. Re:4 Months ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so not true.

      what's profitable is to bow down to the chinese government's censorship and control over individual thought and expression. this would secure their stake in china's internet market.

      the conflict with this is the threat of losing intellectual property to said goverment (one of the issues) and secondly it goes against google's policy of open access to information and doing no harm (the second half of the issue: hacked accounts belonging to human rights activists and oppression of free thought and access to information).

      what's right is for the chinese government to support and advance human rights issues, not make them worse. if they had, home grown companies like google would have already sprouted up in china.

      companies like google exist *because* of open access to information.

    3. Re:4 Months ago... by Drethon · · Score: 1

      I said most companies, I didn't specify Google. I'm not privy to inside information so I can't say if this pullout is for profitable purposes or if Google indeed does still have a conscious.

    4. Re:4 Months ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've always been at war with Eurasia.

    5. Re:4 Months ago... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      US Criticizes Google's 'Chinese Ties'

      Google responds:

      "We cannot find reasonably priced ties made in the US or Europe any more".

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:4 Months ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It appears that there is grounds here for Consensus:

                                    Most (if not all) Ties

                                      are EEEVIL;

      as are Suits....

    7. Re:4 Months ago... by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Can I please be allowed to mod this one up despite it being a reply? Never has a more true statement been made :)

  8. OMG. Thank you, China. by Jawn98685 · · Score: 3, Funny

    My government is using the Internet to spy on me? Who knew?

  9. No NSA behind Google? by kubitus · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Logic says can not be:

    :

    Secret Services/Intelligence must get information

    there is information in the internet

    where is information seeked for: in search enghines

    to know what is searched for you ought to sit behind a search engine, best Google

    and you can then also influence what is being found

    much cheaper than Echelon

    And in the answer streams from a search engine one can embedd other things such as trojans etc...

    QED

    1. Re:No NSA behind Google? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      The largest source of intelligence has nothing to do with covert activity or super secret spy satellites. It has to do with general information that is easy for anyone to get and always has been. It's even more true with the Internet now.

      Reminds me of that bit in Doctor Strangelove where the Russian ambassador says he knew that the U.S. was working on a doomsday weapon and when Muffley denies it he says his source was the New York Times.

      Preventing the Chinese elite from getting info from Google is probably a bigger problem to them than any of us can realize.

    2. Re:No NSA behind Google? by kubitus · · Score: 1
      continuation of the logic chain -

      -

      please tell me where it snaps:

      being an intelligence institution, I look at the Echelon bill and sratch my head!

      then I ask: how can I avoid wading through the communication nonsense and find the needle in the haystack?

      I got to the manufacturer of routers and other network devices and ask them:

      please put this little piece of code into your machine. You do not need to know that this is a Trojan Boot Loader (TBL )

      And BTW please hand us over the list of serial number together who bougth them.

      -

      then as an intelligence agency, I send a Trojan to the router of this governement, or that industry.

      much more efficient than having to sieve through all that noise in the Internet and Telephone carriers!

  10. Do we have to hear about every piece of propaganda by BlueBoxSW.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ???

    If I wanted to read chinese propagada, I would go to the source:

    http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/

  11. Hello, China, reality calling by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google is behaving far more ethically than the State Department. If they were really Pentagon puppets, they'd be more concerned with trying to add 2% to the value of the Yuan rather than with trivial little things like free speech and political freedom.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Hello, China, reality calling by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      Lets not lose track of reality here. Google likely doesnt give a shit about whether china is free or not any more than the rest of us do, they're really trying to leverage business success against an incredibly massive weight of public opinion and a slightly less massive though largely unseen morass of law and regulations.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    2. Re:Hello, China, reality calling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ethically? They didn't even register a case with the Chinese police. This is just a big drama.

    3. Re:Hello, China, reality calling by magus_melchior · · Score: 1

      When a political power feels threatened, it'll go almost as far as committing perjury to defend itself. In essence, they will say anything to either take the heat off of them or to bring the troublemaker down with them.

      And that's standard practice in diplomacy. Everyone knows that everyone else is lying or hiding something; the trick is to know where the deception is.

      Not condoning the behavior of the Chinese (especially since they're using their propaganda ministry directly), but putting this action into perspective. In the long haul it will mean very, very little, because China is just as dependent on the US as the Americans are to them.

      --
      "We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
    4. Re:Hello, China, reality calling by IBABad1 · · Score: 1

      China's yuan is undervalued due to the Chinese govt pegging its value against the US dollar. A condition of China joining the WTO was that it had to float its currency within 7 years of joining. China joined in 2001. It has not floated its currency yet and it is 2010. I don't think it's a trivial matter that China is a member of the WTO and is a blatant currency manipulator.

      What other country in the WTO can just change the value of its currency regardless of actual market conditions?

  12. Better Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You ever get the idea that we need a better Internet anyway? After all a nation shouldn't have that much control over what goes in/out. If an ISP can throttle what you download even here, and can have rooms where it can be parsed for government use tells me no more ISP would be the first piece of the puzzle.

  13. China is naive by testadicazzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    China needs to learn that in the U.S. the corporations run the state, not the other way around.

    1. Re:China is naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

      Can I just be one of the many who say: FUCK CHINA

    2. Re:China is naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What they need to learn is that they don't have enough strength to fight American propaganda machines.

    3. Re:China is naive by easyTree · · Score: 1

      In communist america, china fucks you.

    4. Re:China is naive by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      What they need to learn is that we don't have, or need, propaganda machines. We can look at their news for ourselves and see how ridiculous what they're saying is, or how true it is.

      ^ One of the many advantages of a free internet.

    5. Re:China is naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In China, the state & corporations are essentially one & the same. Seems odd to bash Google about government ties when most major corporations in China are essential run by the state communist party.

    6. Re:China is naive by teg · · Score: 1

      What they need to learn is that we don't have, or need, propaganda machines

      Sure, you do. The biggest example would be Fox News. It might not be a government propaganda machine (at least not since Bush left), but it still is a very politicized, extreme (at least for us Europeans) news outlet reporting news the way Murdoch wants.

      Italy is even worse off, with the prime minister owning all the major private TV channels and now influencing the state run ones too...

    7. Re:China is naive by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Except that would seem to imply that at some point, the U.S. was fucking China...has that ever happened? Pre-WWII, maybe?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    8. Re:China is naive by testadicazzo · · Score: 1

      If you are interested in the complex system of media control in the United States, there's an excellent study called "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky.

    9. Re:China is naive by BhaKi · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, Noam Chomsky has been labelled by the propagandists as a conspiracy theorist.

      --
      The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
    10. Re:China is naive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we don't have, or need, propaganda machines.

      You are wrong AND wrong. Your supposed freedom is an illusion. Read some Noam Chomsky articles.

  14. Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So... A government controlled news entity IN CHINA is reporting dirt about google to the Chinese people. Why the heck is this news?

    1. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Because this is what China is telling their people. In China all press is government controlled. Media is used to control society (good thing that could never, ever happen in the USA, no all our media is unbiased except for that one EEEEVIL TV station called Fox) and China knows it. To us, the story is China broke into Google.com and spraypainted "China Rul3z!" all over human rights activists email accounts. Google is rightly angry about this and is pulling out of China in response.

      China puts their own bias on the story (oops, sorry, only one TV station does that, all the rest are objective). The story is "Google is an evil American company that wants that horrible freedom for China. In addition, they are incapable of following Chinese laws. They are foreign invaders out to destroy Chinese culture just like the Eight Nations and should be dealt with strongly. WTO says China has to open its markets in a legal sense, but we Chinese will make it impossible to continue business here. Crush foreigners and sell their assets to Chinese companies for a song!" Mark my words, this story will play out again and again in coming years, as foreign companies are taxed, legally harassed, and otherwise driven out of China - legally, of course. China didn't kick Google out, but merely made it impossible for them to continue.

      One of the reasons modern Westerners find it so difficult to understand China is that the Chinese government actually has their own nation's welfare in mind. Western governments rarely intentionally represent their people, and as a matter of fact great lengths are gone to to subvert the legislative process at all levels. China represents its own interests, which causes some people's heads to explode in confusion. But one thing modern Westerners and China can agree on is that their nation's common people are idiots cannot possibly govern themselves, but need to be ruled.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      So... A government controlled news entity IN CHINA is reporting dirt about google to the Chinese people. Why the heck is this news?

      Yeah, why are things happening in other country news?

      "So, the earth IN HAITI is dropping houses on the Haitian people. Why the heck is this news?"

      Why is that tripe modded up? Every thread, EVERY THREAD some troll comes along demanding to know why this is news. Ignore them, or mod them down, but don't mod it up: It's noise! Just noise.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that's an understatement, in China EVERYTHING is government controlled, even if they say it belongs to investors or some rich guy or whatever, they all work for the chinese government.

    4. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between "the earth IN HAITI is dropping houses on the Haitian people", and this story is that one is an unusual occurrence, and thus is newsworthy.

    5. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by lavardo · · Score: 1

      Because it's "A government controlled news entity IN CHINA".

  15. Ho ho ho. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While it would not at all surprise me if the relationship between aspects of the US intelligence apparatus and aspects of google is rather cozy(they'd merely be joining the long list of data broker companies for which that is true*cough* ChoicePoint, *cough* Acxiom, *cough*AT&T); it takes real chutzpah for a country where enterprises owned outright by the state and/or military are common, standard practice, to start moralizing about the shady and nebulous ties between google and America's spook infestation.

    1. Re:Ho ho ho. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      it takes real chutzpah for a country where enterprises owned outright by the state and/or military are common, standard practice, to start moralizing about the shady and nebulous ties between google and America's spook infestation.

      What's the Chinese equivalent of chutzpah? I'm imagining instead of a mindset "my balls are huge" it's more like "I can't possibly be wrong".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. unalienable rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    apply to the chinese whatever their govt says.

  17. This is so incredibly saddening and angering, but by judolphin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As ridiculous as this is, at least they're fabricating crap in order to keep out a search engine, instead of fabricating crap in order to start a war.

    People in power do whatever they want. It usually works. On the rare occasion it doesn't, it makes the history books.

    --
    The Institute of Incomplete Research has determined that 9 of out 10
  18. Re:Do we have to hear about every piece of propaga by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ???

    If I wanted to read chinese propagada, I would go to the source:

    http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/

    You know, I wish I 1) spoke some variant of Chinese and 2) knew more about Chinese media outlets. I wrote a journal post about this situation back when it was developing and tried to find a diverse viewpoint in Chinese news related to Google's ultimatum. It turned out to be more humorous and an exercise in futility than anything else. Does anyone who speaks the language know of a 'subversive' news source out of China? Or anything at all offering balanced and multiple views in the reporting? All I see is multiple sources looking like they are offering you unbiased news when, in fact, they are regurgitating something to you that is within a government approved standard deviation of the government approved message.

    Really, really sad. Also a stark reminder of how thankful I should be of the diversity of our press in the United States no matter how sorry it may look at times ...

    --
    My work here is dung.
  19. Whoda thunkit? by KnownIssues · · Score: 1

    A US-based company, full of US citizens, acting to further the interests of the US. No shit Sherlock!

    Don't worry China. As soon as you become enough of a consumer nation that Google's advertising-based model is overwhelmingly profitable for them in China, they'll have to bow to their stockholders, who won't be able to stop from salivating over your billions of consumers.

    Until then, your whining makes us all feel good about ourselves, as we all secretly fear we're getting the same propoganda from our own government (regardless of political party).

    1. Re:Whoda thunkit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As soon as you become enough of a consumer nation that Google's advertising-based model is overwhelmingly profitable for them in China, they'll have to bow to their stockholders, who won't be able to stop from salivating over your billions of consumers.

      I know I will be modded down as a troll, but commercializing China has been a goal in European culture since Roman times. Countless historical episodes have occurred while trying to do that, including
      Marco Polo
      Discovery of America
      European colonialism
      Japan got opened up

      etc

    2. Re:Whoda thunkit? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The best propaganda is based on truth. Of course Google wants to impose American values on the world - Sergey Brin is a US immigrant who moved to America precisely because he thinks American values are a good thing. Google publicly asked the NSA for help securing its network, so the 'ties' between Google and US intelligence are not exactly secret and, given that the NSA and Google are the two largest employers of data mining specialists in the USA, it wouldn't be at all surprising if both employ quite a few people that have worked at the other.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Whoda thunkit? by Stargoat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not sure Google is actively working to further the interests of the US. Instead, Chinese leadership is incapable of appreciating the differences between US policy, US culture, and plain ole' innate freedoms. Chinese leadership sees everything through a Han cultural perspective, with everyone not Han is either a strong barbarian intent upon conquering China or a weak barbarian who should be conquered by China.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
  20. One company's ambition by thej1nx · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If one company's ambition change China's internet rules will only prove to be ridiculous, why is a China government run news agency so frantically issuing statements on the issue?

    It is just one company, right? In theory they shouldn't even be taking notice...

    If they had actually expected to come out fully unscathed from this, they would have not even blinked.

    China's censorship system had worked so far only because the Chinese always had options/alternatives when blocked from sites containing "dangerous ideas". The Chinese public simply accepted the government explanation. But Google, as the world's leading search engine, is something that is pretty much an inherent part of internet. Blocking a valuable internet resource requires much more rationalization, which is exactly what has the Chinese government sweating. It will be much harder to sell to the internet-using Chinese public. As such, this actually can lead to a relaxing of censorship in China. If not, it will lead to a realization on the part of Chinese public as to how they are actually visibly suffering by tolerating a non-democratic fascist state. Both are the first baby steps on the road to self-determination and freedom for the people in China.

    Sadly, the said Chinese government is banking on having an alternative in competing search engines such as that of Microsoft. If Microsoft fails to follow Google's example, it will now actually be actively working to keep the seeds of democracy out of China.

    Not that Microsoft, would be interested in anything apart from its profit line, considering it doesn't really believes in any kind of business ethics.

    1. Re:One company's ambition by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      If one company's ambition change China's internet rules will only prove to be ridiculous, why is a China government run news agency so frantically issuing statements on the issue?

      To make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you repeat it enough, people will believe it.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    2. Re:One company's ambition by jdogalt · · Score: 1

      "
      Both are the first baby steps on the road to self-determination and freedom for the people in China.
      "

      Uh... No. Thousands of Man and Woman sized steps were taken decades ago in Tienanmen Square. The government, using agents from distant areas (less likely to have relatives in the crowd), subsequently mowed them down with machine guns after several days of peaceful protests. Decades later, Google for years provided that same government the technology to keep information about that event from the people for several years. To and including today.

      Go watch the Ted Koppel Discovery Channel documentary on China, where he asks a group of a dozen students about the incident. For about a minute it is blank stares as if no one has any idea what he is talking about. Then the camera catches one of them whisper "84" into the ears of the other.

      China's totalitarian censorship tactics create a dissociated personality in their citizens, where they have to 'DoubleThink' in order to have a conversation about actual reality. I for one after the last decade of the patriot act am a lot less certain that the US is all that much better, but on the face, it certainly seems to be.

      The time for baby steps is long over. There was a new hope in Tienanment Square, then the Empire struck back. The question is whether or not there will be a return of the Jedi. (several years after those tech Jedi appeared to have aligned themselves with the dark side)

  21. hate them, but there's some truth by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, we all love to hate the chinese. But there's some truth in there. The US is aggressively exporting its values and believes to the entire world, and it isn't asking if anyone wants it. Hollywood is the biggest propaganda machine ever, far more subtle and effective than any Nazi or Soviet Russian government efforts. And yes, Google is part of a culture as much as it is a company, and is bringing that culture to the world.

    Most of the world is eating it up. A lot of people welcome it. Few of them made a conscious decision among alternatives on the matter of culture and spirit.

    I'm not debating if the US culture is "good" or "bad" here, just stating the fact that the amount of culture that is in the american way of doing business is seldom reflected.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by thej1nx · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Screw US.

      If US does the right thing, even for selfish motives, how does that make the said "right thing" to be wrong?

      Since when did the right to self-determination, freedom of expression and thought, freedom to not be oppressed by a fascist state, become wrong?

      Your argument is like saying "Oh my god, that guy who pushed that child out of the way of a speeding car, is reputed to be a bully. That child should not have been saved by him! How can you guys accept this?".

      Notice the flaw in such an argument?

    2. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Except that there is some debate as to what the right thing is in this case - the chinese government wants to protect its people from goatse etc... probably in addition to other ommissions. Who are we to say that freedom to be goatse-rolled is a human right?

    3. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If US does the right thing, even for selfish motives, how does that make the said "right thing" to be wrong?"

      It seems you need to do research into Kantian morality. It's the maxim that matters, not the outcome.

      "Your argument is like saying "Oh my god, that guy who pushed that child out of the way of a speeding car, is reputed to be a bully. That child should not have been saved by him! How can you guys accept this?"."

      Actually, a closer analogy would have been that the guy pushed the child, and it just so happened that a car sped by. Even though the guy might have pushed the child out of the way, he was doing it just to push the child.

    4. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Please explain how Tim Burton and Kristen Stewart represent the US government. This should be a good one. For inspiration, try Fars or www.kcna.co.jp, they tell the same story you do. Bonus points for lumping Jim Carrey in with the Nazis and Communists.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is hard for many of us for whom the TV and HOLLYWOOD have been there for our whole lives to understand the immense propaganda value their carry. However subtle it may be, it has profound effect on society as a whole. I personally loathe what it has done to relationships, giving unreasonable expectations to youth in how the life of a couple works. You get to have a glimpse to another person's truly personal life maybe a handful of times in your life (apart from your own family), but you get to see the same 'sets and settings' play out in TV and MOVIES hundreds of times in your life. It is no wonder these traits follow up to real life, and often cause anxiety and grief.

      Even if you regard what you see in the moving pictures as mere stories, they still dig deep into your head. Sitcoms also defines the humour (and via that, the conducts which should be laughed at and disregarded as nonsense.), and people relate to the characters in the shows. If they act in a way that a character in a TV show acts, and the TV character is portrayed as a better person than someone who is laughed at, he will get a boost of self-acknowledgement regarding his own behaviour.

      The MOVIES also immensively affect cultural traditions (diamonds are forever, wedding ring has to have a scrap diamond in it, etc.) and politics (Iraqi torturers, US liberators, Hurt Locker portraying the soldiers are heroes and the occupied nation as villains and thus winning disproportionate amount of Oscars, etc). It all shapes the public image. We'll see how the new Karate Kid fares, when the black guy gets mistreated in China by people who will no doubt be portrayed as monsters.

      Pure coincidences, but don't be surprised if at some point the Americans or, sweet Jesus bear me for saying this, the ..Israelis, will be portrayed as the villains instead. Maybe a covert Arab freeing his jailed, tortured and abused peers from the hands of US torturers within secret US prisons. The mental image might be amusing, but that's exactly what's being done in reverse at the moment. And the public opinion has been shaped by such means for quite a long time now. It's especially easy to shape the public image in things that you've not really read about or had the first hand contact and then shove it down with nice shock values - the search for examples is left as an exercise for the reader.

      The basics of propaganda and the psychology behind it should be taught in school in form of critical thinking classes.

      I've travelled somewhat more than people in my age group, and from what I've discerned is that people tend to be quite alike. No matter where you go. Eventhough they might have some cultural quirks, they tend to wish you well. Yes, even in the Middle East and Africa.

      This, however, shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has utilized Internet to its fullest and had civil discussions with people from around the world.

    6. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Since when did the right to self-determination, freedom of expression and thought, freedom to not be oppressed by a fascist state, become wrong?

      That only works if you believe morals are universal. In truth, we know that it's relative. You can look at how relative it is without leaving the US: just look at the health care issue. You have the people who say that it's immoral to let people who can't afford health insurance to go without. On the other side you also have the people who say it's immoral to be forced to pay the costs for others, when they may not be taking care of their own bodies and thus being at a higher health risk then their neighbors who are paying for this government mandated care. Who is right?

      The truth is that it depends on what morals you personally subscribe to. The solution would be more states rights. This way people who wanted universal health care could live in a state that provides it (and pay the taxes), and those that do not want it could live in a state that does not provide it, and buy their own privately.

      Similarly, who are you to say the Chinese are wrong if they want their government to "protect" them on the internet. I certainly wouldn't want it, but if that's what they do, it's their country. Either way, Google isn't doing anything wrong, quite the contrary, they're doing everything right. It's against the ethics of this American company and management to continue to censor websites in China. It's against the ethics of this American company and management to enable human rights abuses. And they told the Chinese government that they can either change the rules or leave. They're not threatening to forcefully impose American morals on China with mighty military power, they're telling them that Chinese morals are not compatible, and that they'll be forced to leave.

    7. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since when did the right to self-determination, freedom of expression and thought, freedom to not be oppressed by a fascist state, become wrong?

      Huh? Those aren't exclusively US values, buddy. Though it's amusingly very American to claim ownership of those ideas...

      No, "American culture" is generally considered fun stuff like: Consumerism. Corporatism. Obsession with money and violence. Fear of sex and drugs.

      You know, the real America, not the fictious one that conservatives and libertarians wished existed, but actually doesn't.

    8. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please explain how Tim Burton and Kristen Stewart represent the US government.

      Oh please, that's easy. But it is also a straw man argument, because the GP said "the US", not "the US government".

      The US is (still claiming to be) a representative democracy, which means the USG represents the people in the US. Assuming your usage of "represent" actually means "reflect", not "speaks on behalf of" (if you meant the latter, your statement is simply untrue), the people in the US also represent the USG. From that follows that every American represents a subset of the USG. Finally, assuming that most americans are pretty mediocre (do not deviate much from the average american), any group of americans can represent the US government, and the representation becomes more accurate with the size of the group. Now a group of two people is still a group, so yes, they do represent the US government.

    9. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I had this argument when I was in Europe and the Middle East with folks.

      "America is culturally invading other countries..." Wait, what? "Ooh McDonalds is open lets get fries! They have the best milk shakes have you ever had one?!"

      Don't go to American movies. Don't download American music. Don't play American video games. Don't buy from American companies.

      Short list of American companies to avoid...
      Dell, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, Cisco, Google, GM, Ford, Coca-Cola, Pespi, IBM, Blizzard, EA, /.'s parent company, fark.com, CNN, Fox, New York Times, Manchester United and AT&T.

    10. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      We got those ideals from Europe. Victorian ideals just hung out here longer.

    11. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The US is aggressively exporting its values and believes to the entire world, and it isn't asking if anyone wants it.

      It's like complaining about Bic Macs. If you don't like them, and think they're crap, then just don't buy it. Why should they have to ask your permission to sell?

      This goes for countries as well as individuals, by the way.

    12. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by earlymon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most of the world is eating it up. A lot of people welcome it. Few of them made a conscious decision among alternatives on the matter of culture and spirit.

      I said to a friend of 40 years running two days ago that this is not my America anymore. Complacency has led to political leadership where not long ago, t-shirts were seen in New York City saying, "Ever think you'd miss Nixon?" - and our cultural values have death spiraled into Western music being typified by Britney Spears, movies being typified by Transformers and our intellectual degradation is best summed up by the observation that there is actually a debate raging between evolution and creationism/ID.

      I now live in an America where enlightenment and consciousness are no longer on the list of valuable prizes to seek in life = precisely because few of us in the USA made conscious decisions among the matters of our culture and spirit.

      I'm not debating if the US culture is "good" or "bad" here, just stating the fact that the amount of culture that is in the american way of doing business is seldom reflected.

      An interesting complimentarity - on one hand it's a great truth, but its opposite - that our way of doing business is an exact reflection of culture - is equally a great truth.

      --
      Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    13. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "American culture" is generally considered "Consumerism, Corporatism, Obsession with money and violence, fear of sex and drugs" by high school socialists who read some Marx and think they have the "real perspective" on things.

      News flash - Every culture has both negative and positive aspects. By assigning a skewed perspective to those who believe only in the positive you've created a skewed perspective that believes only in the negative. You are just as deluded as the "libertarians and conservatives" that you purport to hate so much.

    14. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't read American media. Then everything will be just fine.

    15. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

      "American culture" is generally considered fun stuff like: Consumerism. Corporatism. Obsession with money and violence. Fear of sex and drugs.

      Yeah but those are not the values that China is complaining about. (They're happy to cooperate with consumerism and corporatism for instance.) They're complaining because Google is threatening to stop censoring their search results.

      Those aren't exclusively US values, buddy. Though it's amusingly very American to claim ownership of those ideas...

      Which is precisely the GP's point--China is trying to make this about international politics (U.S. vs China) but it's not. It's about broadly held values vs. Chinese censorship.

      --
      Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    16. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      "American culture" is generally considered fun stuff like: Consumerism. Corporatism. Obsession with money and violence. Fear of sex and drugs.

      Huh? Those aren't exclusively US values, buddy. Though it's amusingly very American to claim ownership of those ideas...

      No, "American culture" is generally considered mundane stuff like: the right to self-determination, freedom of expression and thought, freedom to not be oppressed by a fascist state.

      You know, the real America, not the fictious one that marxists and leftists wished existed, but actually doesn't.

    17. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the whole point of what they are criticizing in this case is the "American values" of free information and lack of totalitarian control.

      This isn't a complaint about big macs, it's an argument over whether or not citizens have a right to accurate information.

      So, I hope I'm not alone in saying that YES, we do push our own culture in this case, because it's the right thing to do.

      In some countries women are given little respect and are mutilated for not doing exactly as they are told. Is it wrong for us to insist on their dignity?

    18. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Tom · · Score: 1

      It's like complaining about Bic Macs. If you don't like them, and think they're crap, then just don't buy it. Why should they have to ask your permission to sell?

      Where did I say the do?

      The problem here is the dictatorship of the masses. Due to economy of scale and market power of big players, niches are rapidly disintegrating. When commerce was dominated by small companies, owner-run stores, etc. you had a lot of choice and more importantly, if nothing was to your satisfaction, it was easy to start up your own.

      Try starting up your own supermarket when you compete against WalMart. Even if you try to satisfy a niche, you will find yourself facing the culture that WalMart has created, with suppliers not geared towards delivering smaller quantities anymore, for example.

      Nobody forces me to buy a BigMac. I have noticed over the years, however, that it is becoming more and more difficult to find non-fastfood alternatives in major cities. Increasingly, you can have fast food, or an expensive restaurant, but nothing inbetween. I already vote with my wallet. But I only have control over where I put my vote/money, not over who is on the ballot/shopping-street.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    19. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Tom · · Score: 1

      Please explain how Tim Burton and Kristen Stewart represent the US government.

      Why should I explain something I didn't every say or claim?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    20. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Tom · · Score: 1

      Since when did the right to self-determination, freedom of expression and thought, freedom to not be oppressed by a fascist state, become wrong?

      I don't know. Tell me, because it's you who's coming up with that nonsense idea.

      But on a slightly different note, has it ever occured to you that while almost all human cultures share the same set of values, their priorities differ? Some cultures value individualism higher, some value society higher. No culture disregards either. But you have american culture which - I simplify here - says "me" is more important than "you" and you have asian culture, which mostly says "we and you" is more important than "I". So in asia, people don't value the individual rights quite so highly, even though they still hold them. But in many cases where an american would say "I have a right to..., so society has to let me be", the asian would say "society has these rights, so I have to respect that and not insist on my rights".

      We're not really that different, us humans. But some of us prefer red and some of us prefer blue. And some groups of us say society has to make sacrifices so the individual can maximize his happiness, and some say the individual ought to make sacrifices to society at large can maximize its happiness.

      The only evil and stupid people are the ones who think that their value system is the absolute one, the only correct one, the one that should dominate all others.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    21. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Tom · · Score: 1

      This isn't a complaint about big macs, it's an argument over whether or not citizens have a right to accurate information.

      Then America, the land of Watergate, conspiracy theory capital of the world, the land of "Iraq has WMDs and we're invading it because they caused 9/11", the land of FOX news and Hollywood, should take a deep breath, sit down and shut the fuck up.

      In some countries women are given little respect and are mutilated for not doing exactly as they are told. Is it wrong for us to insist on their dignity?

      There is a difference between telling people "hey, you shouldn't abuse women" and "here is exactly how you have to live so that women's rights are respected".

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    22. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Tim Burton and Kristen Stewart *are* Hollywood. You were thinking of what, Ed Wood?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    23. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Tom · · Score: 1

      You just failed the Turin test, thank you for playing.

      Not only is your statement blatantly false, it doesn't even address the point. I was nowhere talking about the US government. The word "government", or even derivates such as "parliament", "president", etc. don't even appear in my posting. I was talking about US culture, which has very little to do with the government, and for what it has, the causal relationship is the other way around.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    24. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Turin test? LOL. And you lecture others on the meanings of words!

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    25. Re:hate them, but there's some truth by Tom · · Score: 1

      You mean you are not a simple ELIZA program that takes words out of context from the postings it replies to, and shuffles them around to create questions and remarks that create the illusion of an actual conversation?

      After the last replies, the burden of proof on that one rests with you. A human would've understood the Turing Test reference, for starters.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  22. I feel lucky to be born in the USA by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US government has done many awful and unjust things but it is a beacon of human rights when compared to the Peoples Republic of China.

    What's happens to US citizens when they criticize the US government? What happens to Chinese citizens when they criticize the current government of China?

    An honest answer to this test should quiet the post we will see here today. Somebody is going to apologize for the atrocities of the Chinese government by saying that the US government is no better. I can criticize both the US government and the Chinese government. I don't fear any reprisal from the US government for that criticism. Chinese citizens can have their lives taken away or be imprisoned for little more than a charge of 'creating instability'.

    1. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by Revotron · · Score: 0, Troll

      "What's happens to US citizens when they criticize the US government?'

      Major media outlets and the incumbent party leaders refer to them as "teabaggers" and insist that they are just acting under the direction of the evil news conglomerate Fox News and that Dick Cheney is controlling them all via satellite from his Fortress of Doom in Halliburton's headquarters while eating kittens by the litter.

    2. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I don't fear any reprisal from the US government for that criticism."

      That is a bit of a stretch, considering that critics of US foreign policy have found themselves unable to board airplanes. Sure, it is not as bad as what happens in China, but let's not act like the US is all roses and that criticism of the government goes unpunished. Only a few years ago, my friends were imprisoned for peacefully protesting the RNC in New York. Like I said, not as bad as China, but certainly nothing close to ideal...

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Who was referring to this guy as a "teabagger?"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_churchill

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This point is lost on many Westerners. When Westerners say that "People in the USSR/China/whereever cannot criticize the government" they actually mean "People in the USSR/China/whereever cannot criticize the established political system". Criticise the CPSU and the KGB will come down on you like a ton of bricks. Criticize the "Demopublican Party" and the commercial media will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

      Notice how criticism of formal government structures did not occur, and even the most "unfree" systems will allow (at least in principle) criticism of said formal government structures.

    5. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Unable to board an airplane != being thrown in jail for years

    6. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Troll

      So what? It's still morally equivalent. America is just as bad as China, if not worse.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Which is I said, "Not as bad as what happens in China." Try reading more than the first sentence, perhaps it will help clarify things for you.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    8. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unable to board an airplane != being thrown in jail for years

      Huh? And because it's not as bad, it's suddenly right?

      Unable to board an airplane != freedom of movement

    9. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by wilder_card · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unable to board airplanes == imprisoned and executed? Really?

    10. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Somebody is going to apologize for the atrocities of the Chinese government by saying that the US government is no better.

      Indeed. And the funny thing is that the moral relativism excuse only has a chance of working if the two entities being compared are actually, well, close.

      Sadly, they're obviously nowhere near close on this issue, so the apologists look like a bunch of idiots/shills/nationalists.

      The worst (or funniest, depending on your point of view) example I saw was on another site yesterday; Chinese police are raiding cooking oil producers, because it turns out they're making the stuff out of... sewage. To the tune of 10% of the cooking oil sold in China being made of sewage. And still the relativist apologists came out in droves in the comments. Really. You guys are literally EATING SHIT and still trying to play the "you're not perfect so you can't criticize at all" card? :D

    11. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Could you at least read the next sentence? Seriously, I said it was not as bad as what the Chinese do. GP said that he feels free to criticize the US government without fear of reprisal, and all I said was that, in fact, criticism of the US government does not go unpunished. No, it is not the same thing as what the Chinese do, but it is not the democratic ideal that we like to hold ourselves and our society to.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    12. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by andy1307 · · Score: 1

      Well said. I completely agree and I wasn't even born in the US.

    13. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by andy1307 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like I said, not as bad as China, but certainly nothing close to ideal...

      That's a straw man. Where did OP claim the US was a utopia?

    14. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually worse.
      If you are in China you know the rules.
      If you are in the US you have 200,000 pages of federal state and local statutes to know, understand and follow!

      So on one hand you are dead, on the other hand you are placed in a very small cage and still shouting that "This is freedom, see Im not dead!"

    15. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by WiiVault · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed I noticed that as well. It's bizarre that any post than isn't openly hostile to the United States is somehow deemed shilling or pro-US. The OP was right comparing the imperfect somewhat broken US system to the hopelessly corrupt- dare I say evil PRC stance- is just insane.

    16. Re:I feel lucky to be born in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is a beacon of human rights abuse. Overthrowing democracies, torturing, highest incarceration rate on the planet, free-speech zones, legal bribery of politicians, warantless wiretapping, police in schools... need I go on?

  23. spin baby spin by Weezul · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Google only ever had one small bit of leverage when negotiating with China : Chinese citizens know that Google is more legit & honest than Badu. We're totally unsurprised that Chia spins away this leverage.

    --
    The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  24. Pot, meet Kettle by m.ducharme · · Score: 1

    Given how thoroughly China controls Chinese businesses, it's exceedingly hypocritical for China to criticize Google for these perceived links to the US government.

    --
    Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    1. Re:Pot, meet Kettle by jandrese · · Score: 1

      That's the point though, the government can't stand any business that offers up even token resistance to their control. Google is smart enough not to let some penny-ante bureaucrats mess with them, and as a result they're basically getting kicked out of the country.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  25. history lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They have also accused the company of trying to
    change Chinese society by imposing American values on it."
    everybody knows the internet was invented in china, duh.

    1. Re:history lesson by m.ducharme · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And Shakespeare is best in the original Klingon.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  26. Stop whining! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *points at China*

    It's hard telling a company what to do when you don't own it, eh? Mayhaps this will inspire other companies to think twice before setting up shop in China...

  27. Umm... Who cares? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Does anyone really give an airborne copulation at a ventrally rotating toroid what China criticizes?

    I'm not intending to be dismissive. I actually don't understand why this is even news.

  28. China has it backward by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    China owns the playing field and sets the rules for that playing field. Google has attempted to play in China's playground but cannot survive within the constraint of its rules. It has exhausted all efforts to make adjustments and compromises but China will have none of it. Google has two options -- change the way it does business or leave. These options are rather similar to China's options -- allow changes in the way it deals with business or make them leave. It doesn't have to be an emotionally or politically charged problem at all.

    Google's options are limited. Leaving is clearly the last resort and it seems that they are taking that one. China is keeping its playground, but Google is taking the ball back home.

  29. Well.... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    ... google IS a US-based company.... what did they expect?

    --
    bickerdyke
    1. Re:Well.... by SmackTheIgnorant · · Score: 1
      This is going to open a can of worms, might be marked as a troll, and somewhat humourous that I have a nickname of SmackTheIgnorant while saying this, but...

      Isn't the Internet more of an American invention? I'm not going to say "perfected", but more of a "refined to some extent into the abomination which it is" here in North America?
      Twitter? Facebook? MySpace? YouTube?
      Bing? Yahoo? Google?

      The world can't bend over backwards to serve the needs of a power-hungry vengeful dictatorship , and it shouldn't have to. Corporations don't have to.

      People shouldn't have to. The people of China, however, don't have a choice.

  30. Re:Do we have to hear about every piece of propaga by samkass · · Score: 1

    NPR did a couple of interviews with Chinese bloggers and internet publishers. They were fighting for less Chinese Government restrictions, but even they started one sentence with: "Obviously, the Government needs to protect some people from dangerous information, but..." I haven't heard many native Chinese express the belief that a completely Government-unfiltered communications system is a fundamental right or even something that's unquestionably a good thing on the balance. It's those kinds of attitudes, though, that make me think that China is currently where Japan was in the 80's, and will have a self-limiting success as they run out of Western technology to copy and have trouble creating their own in a communication-stifled society.

    --
    E pluribus unum
  31. Not even the point... by foxalopex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I watched an interesting show on how Google operates and their conclusion was that Google's business is based on "Trust". Unlike many organizations, Google is in business because we trust that they will work and operate to keep our data as safe as they can. It is something that a vast majority of the public including myself takes for granted because so far they haven't messed up badly. According to Google, China was caught hacking their systems, stealing IP and personal user data. If this keeps going on the way it does, then Google can't keep the trust of the public and it might mean the downfall of their company. (I can't use Google because China keeps hacking in and stealing my data.)

    Originally Google went into China because when you really think about it, filtering users from content does not betray this idea of "Trust". Your data is still safe but China stepped over the line when they started hacking into Google.

    The best way for Google to leave China which is likely what they are now planning to do is to drop the filtering. This generates good will with the remaining users. China is correct in that Google is pushing Western ideals however in many ways this is China's fault to begin with. If China hadn't hacked Google to begin with this whole mess would not have started.

    I personally don't see a huge problem with China filtering searches. It's their own country and their own rules. Admittedly this goes against freedom of speech (a democratic idea) but China's pretty far from a democracy. Hopefully someday, their public will realize that it is something valuable enough to fight for but for now it doesn't seem to be the case. However hacking your business partner is far from acceptable.

  32. I doesn't wash. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you were a responsible for horrific atrocities like this one :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
    and you wanted to hide the truth about it from the people, of course you wouldn't believe in the "American way."
    The American way is pretty much the opposite of that.

    I am not involved with Google but they have been open for a good long while and it's one of their core ideals to be committed to openness.
    Sorry if there are Chinese out there who believe that openness and morality are not acceptable in business and that people who believe in freedom are wrong. You guys are wrong.
    It is is abundantly clear that if Google leave China it will be for business reasons. Because they cannot be open and that prevents them from increasing their market share. It is not a political issue.
    Google is an American company. Not a Chinese company.
    The cyber attack was a political issue. Google leaving is not.

    The political issue for China now is why the Chinese government did nothing to assist Google after the attacks and what the Chinese government will do to replace the huge amount of web infrastructure that will no longer be available to the Chinese people if Google leaves.
    Adopting the "We don't care if you leave attitude" is essentially like shooting yourself in the foot.

  33. US company has US ties, news at 11 by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

    Google's entire business model relies on the free internet society that the US has helped build. If the internet started in Iran, it wouldn't be what it is today. To say a US company with a business model based on internet freedom has a US bias is quite the waste of breath.

    This is simply a case of a company embracing like-minded groups and distancing its threats.

  34. Re:Do we have to hear about every piece of propaga by eldavojohn · · Score: 1

    They need more gawking morons like you to round out their site.

    Ah Slashdot, where the genuine request for more information and recognition of your own shortcomings is met only with the satisfying sting of childish name calling. It makes me a 'gawking moron' to ask if anyone knows how I could find out more about genuine news in a country designed to filter out genuine news? Well, I'm kind of sick and tired of people telling me to ignore China.

    I was hoping I'd find more information resources similar to Letter from China except hopefully from a Chinese native citizen. Instead I get an insult and a link to sites seemingly dedicated to a mix of gossip, weird news and some actually decent content.

    Well, if you think I'm merely a 'gawking moron' I'd better follow your lead and just shut up and get back in line and stop thinking. That is the safest thing to do, right?

    --
    My work here is dung.
  35. Re:Umm... Who cares? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    I'm not intending to be dismissive. I actually don't understand why this is even news.

    We're following the Google VS China story.

    Google goes into china, china says out with the pr0n and the "free tibet" crap or no deal, google says ok. People here say google is turning evil, not giving china any pr0n. Google says china hacks google looking for people who want to free tibet, china says nah-huh, google just wanna make china look at 2 girls one cup and goatse. Google says they're gonna take their ball and go home.

    And now we're at "China says google is trying to make china gay for the USA".

    Can't wait to see what google does next.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  36. They're Right by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Of course the Chinese authorities are right. It is ridiculous that Google could think to change China's Internet rules. But it's still a battle worth fighting. 300 Spartans and the other Greek allies didn't actually stop the Persians from invading Greece, but I don't think anyone would call the Battle of Thermopylae ridiculous. Sometimes a stroke of the symbolic sword can be as powerful as a real one.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  37. Internet Society at its Finest by introspekt.i · · Score: 1

    You said the Internet was its own society, and I immediately thought of this.

  38. What do Chinese people think? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be really interested what Chinese people think of this... Unfortunately there seems to be no comment section on xinhuanet. Pretty strange for such big news sites ....

  39. Re:Do we have to hear about every piece of propaga by NekoYasha · · Score: 1

    If you look on Twitter, a website banned in China, you might find people who bothered to break through the censorship and speak their daily lives, and occasionally, comment on current events with a different perspective.

  40. google's brilliant strategy by wiredpasture · · Score: 1

    c'mon! china will do anything to catch up to the west including spying. what's google's share of market in china? their best shot at catching up to a gov't lapdog like Baidu is to offer uncensored content. recognizing that advantage, the chinese authorities moved quickly to threaten 3rd party suppliers that might work with google. How's that for gov't involvement in the marketplace?

  41. Call the whaaambulance by jwietelmann · · Score: 1

    You're like a loud animal rights activist who still keeps eating veal.

    If you're so morally outraged, stop using U.S. companies' internet sites and services, and/or help create some alternatives.

    1. Re:Call the whaaambulance by sopssa · · Score: 1

      Even if I disagree with something it doesn't mean I need to stop using the whole thing. World isn't black and white. Are you saying there should not be any criticism over any thing in the world but anyone should just stop using whatever they're criticizing?

    2. Re:Call the whaaambulance by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      No, but claiming righteous indignation against a company, and then using their products does send a mixed message. It is what corporations count on. If they knew that everyone that disagreed with them would stop using all of their products entirely, it would probably make them consider their decisions a little more. If they know there will be a small uproar, but their numbers won't suffer, then oh well. Business as usual.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
  42. Imposing American values on China? by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You mean like free trade?

    The Chinese government *wants* American values, but cafeteria style. They want free exchange of information so long as it is information leaving America and entering China. They don't want information leaving China or worse yet circulating within China. The Chinese government wants America to be open and pursue classical liberal trade policy while it remains closed and pursues mercantilist policies. It wants America to be true to its respect of sovereign nations, but to forget about every individual's sovereignty over his own opinions. It demands the American not interfere in free markets while the Peoples Liberation Army operates businesses and party official parlay their connections into business wealth.

    China has rejected the extreme form of socialism it was founded on, but it has not adopted the enlightened capitalism of Europe and America. It has recreatd the caricature of American capitalism portrayed in its own propaganda: a system in which corrupt wealthy men pull the strings of corrupt government.

    It's no wonder they don't want American values: those values empower the working class.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Imposing American values on China? by KharmaWidow · · Score: 1

      Or even - what did the communist revolution do to Chinese culture!? The communists KILLED and imprisoned everyone who disagreed. Those are the same communist complaining about the USA.

      Plus - Free Speech. Choice.

    2. Re:Imposing American values on China? by griblik · · Score: 1

      The Chinese government *wants* American values, but cafeteria style. They want free exchange of information so long as it is information leaving America and entering China. They don't want information leaving China or worse yet circulating within China. The Chinese government wants America to be open and pursue classical liberal trade policy while it remains closed and pursues mercantilist policies. It wants America to be true to its respect of sovereign nations, but to forget about every individual's sovereignty over his own opinions. It demands the American not interfere in free markets while the Peoples Liberation Army operates businesses and party official parlay their connections into business wealth.

      You know, I'm no expert on international relations so this might just be the media doing a number on me, but what you've written here looks remarkably similar to how the US treats the rest of the world.

      The US had a unilateral information flow coming from Europe for years until the EU stopped it last year. It still maintains trade embargoes against a variety of countries whilst persuing a policy of protectionism for it's own trade. And the fact that you even have the concept of a "Free speech zone" speaks volumes about the individual's sovereignty over their opinions.

      I'm not saying the US is better or worse than China, just that a lot of the things that USians appear to think differentiate them from the Chinese actually don't.

      --
      Warning: May contain nuts
  43. Google forgets recommending PGP with Gmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Google really cared about our privacy, it would ADVERTIZE using PGP with Gmail. Unfortunately, Google cares more about the revenue from Gmail contextual ads and the information about the users than their privacy.

  44. Goodbye by Max_W · · Score: 1

    If you are not in Shanghai, Chennai, Bombay, and Dubai, then goodbye.

  45. Re:Do we have to hear about every piece of propaga by koxkoxkox · · Score: 1

    I think Danwei is a good place to start :
    http://www.danwei.org/

    Then you will have a lot of blogs on specialized topics, like for example :
    http://www.chinalawblog.com/
    http://www.cleanergreenerchina.com/
    http://www.chinaenvironmentallaw.com/

  46. China is the worst thing or Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chine is like a Cancer killing all the freedom.

  47. Re:Do we have to hear about every piece of propaga by NekoYasha · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah, Danwei is a good one!

  48. Re:Do we have to hear about every piece of propaga by ChinaLumberjack · · Score: 0

    The South China Morning Post is the best English news source I've found. As aHong Kong newspaper, it's not subject to the same gross political manipulation as the mainland counterparts. With regards to Chinese language newspapers, they are all subject to towing the party line. You can find balanced view points but never for politically sensitive topics.

  49. Mod China -1, Troll by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

    I wish we could mod the comments coming from China, North Korea, and elsewhere as Troll or Flamebait, so they could be properly ignored. Unfortunately, the trolls of politics are taken seriously -- they have nuclear weapons, unlike your average slashdot troll.

  50. Send in the spin doctors by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    So... A government controlled news entity IN CHINA is reporting dirt about google to the Chinese people. Why the heck is this news?

    Because right now there are some in China that are sympathetic to Google. It's necessary to demonize them in order to eliminate that sympathy. What better way than to link Google to the evil US government?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  51. Re:This is so incredibly saddening and angering, b by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

    And yet, I've found that most wars have an economic foundation lurking somewhere at its core. Maybe not as a primary motivation, but a strong motivation nonetheless. That makes China's actions against Google and other US "economic interests" quite dangerous.

  52. Re:This is so incredibly saddening and angering, b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the rare occasion it doesn't, it makes the history books.

    Not the chinese history books...just sayin'...

  53. Re:Do we have to hear about every piece of propaga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.zonaeuropa.com

  54. I'll Admit It by ffflala · · Score: 1

    Yes, I would actually like to change Chinese society by imposing American values on it. (Or at least some set of constitutionally democratic values; they don't have to be American.)

    Not that I believe that America always lives up to its own values, but I would like to impose on Chinese society the values of representative government, of freedom of speech, and of equal access to justice. Chinese society currently has none of those values, and I think its people suffer greatly for it.

  55. Google unleashes the new Google Weather by name_already_taken · · Score: 1

    In a strange coincidence, Google today unveiled the awesome power of the revamped Google Weather service, which delivers carefully targeted weather to their enemies^H^H^H^H^H^H^H, I mean users.

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
  56. Google.com banned afterwards? by Twinbee · · Score: 1

    Sorry for not keeping up with this whole thing, but once Google pull out of China, does that mean they won't even be able to access Google.com, a worldwide site?

    --
    Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
  57. Google != USA by twotailakitsune · · Score: 1

    Google like any other co. is out for money. If Google could make more money somewhere else they would. Stop trying to tie Co. to States!

  58. Look whose talking by WiiVault · · Score: 1

    Coming from a Libyan I would not be put too much stock in what you say. You certainly have experience with nationalistic un-democratic indoctrination.

  59. Very consistent actually by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

    We see what we expect to see. In China, companies cannot become powerful and successful without some control and permission of the government. Therefore the Chinese government sees all powerful and successful companies through that lens. It is outside their experience that a private company could become as powerful and successful as Google has without any government patronage to speak of. They believe that they are simply exposing a truth that the rest of the world is too naive to see, or is not willing to admit.

    U.S citizens might see them as hypocritical propagandists. But from their perspective they are being totally consistent.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  60. I'm not sure you can get anything "subversive" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The closest I've seen to something like that is called ChinaSMACK. I wouldn't really call it "subversive," though. It focuses on whatever is currently popular in China. It's interesting to see all the translated comments talking about the USA...

    Suffice it to say, we both have a lot to learn about each other...

  61. Both China and US are the same... by v4vijayakumar · · Score: 1

    They have also accused the company of trying to change Chinese society by imposing American values on it.

    Both China and US are the same. China hides some details from its people, and US also hides some details (UFO, etc.)

  62. brunnegd by brunnegd · · Score: 1

    It is about time someone stands up to the ChiComs

  63. Re:Do we have to hear about every piece of propaga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm Chinese, I can answer your questions. The more balanced views are largely suppressed by either self-censorship our of fear, or forced deletion etc.. The English version of People's Daily really is not enough to give you an idea how homogenous the mainstream media is in China. It's actually an ostensibly relaxed version of the governments' view. That's for your eyes only. The Chinese version is even more ridiculous. But very recent development shows that the Southern Daily Group has been challenging the line drawn by the government.

  64. Re:This is so incredibly saddening and angering, b by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As ridiculous as this is, at least they're fabricating crap in order to keep out a search engine, instead of fabricating crap in order to start a war.

    Afraid it's more like, they're fabricating crap to prevent dissent among the people. Can't have Google infecting the populace with crazy ideas of freedom, so they tarnish the company, and make it out to be an enemy / threat against the people.

  65. Re:Let's not forget our history lessons by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Actually it was China's decision to open up their borders, allow trade, foreign companies, and embrace that whole capitalism thing. So they actually DID decide to let Google (and everyone else) in. Learn you some history, foo!