Slashdot Mirror


China Says Google Pledged To Obey Censorship Demands

bonhomme_de_neige writes "China renewed Google's internet license after it pledged to obey censorship laws and stop automatically switching mainland users to its unfiltered Hong Kong site, an official said. Google promised to 'obey Chinese law' and avoid linking to material deemed a threat to national security or social stability, said Zhang Feng, director of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's Telecoms Development Department, at a news conference." Update: 07/21 21:56 GMT by S : Changed headline to reflect that this is mainly just China trying to paint a better picture of the outcome. In a comment on the linked article, a Google representative said, "This piece suggests that Google has 'bowed' to censorship. That is not correct. We have been very clear about our committment [sic] to not censor our products for users in China. The products we have kept on Google.cn (Music, Translate, Product Search) do not require any censorship by Google. Other products, like web search, we are offering from Google.com.hk, and without censorship." If you go to google.cn, you can see the prominent link to the Hong Kong version of the site.

177 comments

  1. Easier to just say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    that Google has milked all the positive PR out of standing up to China (covered by major news networks) and is prepared for the small amount of negative PR by selling out (Slashdot).

    1. Re:Easier to just say... by BangaIorean · · Score: 0

      Exactly my thoughts! I wonder how much coverage this will get in the mainstream media!! I hope there is a huge outcry about this! Put Google between a rock and a hard place and see what they choose.

    2. Re:Easier to just say... by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, well, maybe Google will have better luck fighting the neo-Nazi and hate speech censorship filters in Germany... ;-P

    3. Re:Easier to just say... by molnarcs · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, we'll only see some negative PR on slashdot because people don't usually read the linked articles. This is old news, it was up on BBC Online over a week ago. The only difference is that instead of the neutral "China Renews Google's License" they went for the more sensationalist "Google Bows to China" headline. Which is, by the way, not only sensationalist, but misleading as well. In other words, they still don't censor content for Chinese users, the only concession Google made was to redirect users to a "landing" site instead of redirecting them automatically to google.hk.

      In other words, this is a dupe.

    4. Re:Easier to just say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just see below as to how quickly the Google androids fall in line to protect the Mother Machine known as Google...

      From TFA:

      Google promised to "obey Chinese law" and avoid linking to material deemed a threat to national security or social stability, said Zhang Feng, director of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's Telecoms Development Department, at a news conference.

      Exactly how is that NOT censoring search results?

      "We're not evil simply because we won't link to any results showing we are..." /Sarcasm

  2. Tiananmen Square by Darth+Sdlavrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The photo of the student confronting tanks isn't a national security risk.

    So they won't have to filter that.

    1. Re:Tiananmen Square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but maybe it is a "or social stability".

    2. Re:Tiananmen Square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of threat to "social stability" don't you understand.

    3. Re:Tiananmen Square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What part of threat to "social stability" don't you understand.

      Apparently the part where the phrase is being used as a euphemism for oppression.

    4. Re:Tiananmen Square by thijsh · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, lot's of things are claimed in the interest of "national security"... it's the most abused term since you can't possibly be against security of your nation (and yourself). But no country is really free of this abuse...
      Example: the story of a mom (ironically named Freeman) who was arrested, convicted and lost her kids in the interest of national security. She surely must have been a terrorist... right???
      The only thing different about China is the blatant censorship, most western nations try to be more subtle with their censoring... but it still happens (and guess which two words are always the reason).

    5. Re:Tiananmen Square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...it still happens (and guess which two words are always the reason).

      I thought 'pedoterrorists' was one word.

    6. Re:Tiananmen Square by IBBoard · · Score: 0, Troll

      It may be oppression (with the obvious pointer to "terrorist" versus "freedom fighter" issues that can apply to the term), but if it is done to prevent a riot or public uprising then it would technically be a move to stop a threat to "social stability". The impact and the intent can be slightly detached, even if the intent defines why they want the impact.

    7. Re:Tiananmen Square by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Funny

      The photo of the student confronting tanks isn't a national security risk.

      So they won't have to filter that.

      Are you mad? Then everyone will know their tanks aren't student-proof! It'll be the end of China!

      --

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

    8. Re:Tiananmen Square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of 'national security risk' they should have said something like 'something that's perceived as a threat to the system and existing order'. That's what it's all about. Those, who are in power, don't like people thinking for themselves and putting things into question. They prefer to dumb people of course, since they don't cause them trouble and are easier to rule of course.
      To be honest, I think it's also that way in western democratic societies. Money talks/rules and there are also people, who perceive intelligent people asking questions as a threat to their wealth and power. The big difference is that they can't pull something off like the chinese government here without a big outcry, they have to be more subtile here, talk to the right people, use the media etc. to direct the opinion of the masses in a way that's in their interest.

    9. Re:Tiananmen Square by Arccot · · Score: 1

      It may be oppression (with the obvious pointer to "terrorist" versus "freedom fighter" issues that can apply to the term), but if it is done to prevent a riot or public uprising then it would technically be a move to stop a threat to "social stability". The impact and the intent can be slightly detached, even if the intent defines why they want the impact.

      Should a government have the right to censor based upon the expected reactions from the public? I don't really see how that could be a good thing, but I'm willing to be convinced. In cases like this, if a photo of a murder/police action can cause a public uprising, should a real government (i.e. representing the governed) have any interest in covering it up? Is the potential safety of the governed more important than accurate information?

    10. Re:Tiananmen Square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Back to the Firefox it is.

    11. Re:Tiananmen Square by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A flight attendant confronted Freeman [about her fighting children], who then responded by hurling a few profanities and throwing what remained of a can of tomato juice on the floor. The incident aboard the Frontier flight ultimately led to Freeman's arrest and conviction [three months jailtime] for a federal felony defined as an act of terrorism under the Patriot Act, the controversial federal law enacted after the 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.

      That's reminiscent of what happened to Professor Gates. He gets angry about being mistreated, and suddenly he finds himself in jail.

      Apparently we no longer have free speech in the United Soviets of America. An airline should have power to remove unruly passengers, but never to arrest them.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    12. Re:Tiananmen Square by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>Should a government have the right to censor based upon the expected reactions from the public?

      Never. The ultimate authority if the People, which is above all governments. When government seeks to censor photos or news articles, it flips that arrangement and becomes the Master while the people are demoted to children to be "cared for" and "protected." That's a reversion to pre-Enlightenment Middle Ages thinking.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    13. Re:Tiananmen Square by thijsh · · Score: 1

      If anything the photo's show the reverse: that students are not tank proof. I just saw a link to the HK google site that displayed it with full blood-and-gore glory. You'd guess they might want to highlight this little bit of 'squished cowardly dissidents' VS 'mighty peoples army tanks'.

    14. Re:Tiananmen Square by Arccot · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      >>>Should a government have the right to censor based upon the expected reactions from the public?

      Never. The ultimate authority if the People, which is above all governments. When government seeks to censor photos or news articles, it flips that arrangement and becomes the Master while the people are demoted to children to be "cared for" and "protected." That's a reversion to pre-Enlightenment Middle Ages thinking.

      Then my question to you would be: Why DO governments exist? I believe the answer is that governments exist, and their fundemental purpose is, to protect their citizens. So I could argue it is conceivably within the scope of government to protect innocents from riots and civil unrest. This includes censoring materials which would cause these actions.

      I could argue the Rwandan genocide would not have happened if the government censored those individuals calling for violence before it got out of hand.

    15. Re:Tiananmen Square by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's the most abused term since you can't possibly be against security of your nation (and yourself). But no country is really free of this abuse...

      Huh? Of course you can.

      For starters, "your nation" is an ambiguous term. If I'm a terrorist from Belgium* living as a permanent resident or even citizen of the US, what is "[my] country?" What if I am living there with the express intent of harming the country, much as the 9/11 terrorists were?

      Even if I'm purely from the US, born and raised, that's not to say that I can't be against it. I'm pretty tired of a lot of the crap that goes on here, for example. Personally it would make me much more likely to move elsewhere than seek to destroy it or kill people, but that doesn't mean I couldn't be somebody who takes that tact.

      Maybe I'm against a standing army so I want to kill all the soldiers I see, even though I love my country itself. Maybe I even think I'm doing what's best for it. Few people would argue that committing murder as a demand for the dismantling of our military doesn't run contrary to national security.

      The US political system has gotten old, but if I go around advocating killing all of our politicians they're going to charge me as a terrorist acting against national security -- and I would deserve it.

      All of these are just examples of the multitude of hard-to-argue-against ways I can be "against security of [my] nation (and [myself])." There are plenty more, in addition to all sorts of rather insane possibilities and ones that are much more debatable. I could make a good case, I think, for the Tienanmen Square photos being against national security, for example. It could cause severe unrest, it could cause violence, it could cause the (attempted) overthrow of the government. As a US citizen who does not support what they did, does not support their covering up what they did and does not support that sort of censorship in general that would be a great thing, but I am also compelled to admit that from the perspective of the Chinese government, rebellion goes against national security.

      The term is absolutely abused, and with 9/11 in our rear-view mirrors it may just be the most overused excuse today -- but that doesn't mean it is never valid explanation. It may or may not also be a valid reason for whatever happened.

      * Yeah yeah. I'm intentionally not picking some Middle Eastern country.

    16. Re:Tiananmen Square by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      >The ultimate authority is the People, which is above all governments.
      So you are saying if tomorrow everyone in china is open to having sex with a 4 year old, then the government should bow down and allow that to become ok within their law system, I don't think I quite know what to think of your proposal, although if we were all able to be like that, I think we could all agree what everyone wants to do to those bastards at BP.....too bad that isn't legal either...

    17. Re:Tiananmen Square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on whether you perceive the the greater threat to be a socially unstable public, or the action that caused the public to become unstable. Many of us perceive the latter to be the greatest danger and as such consider actions to hide and censor this to be equally dangerous.

    18. Re:Tiananmen Square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...if I go around advocating killing all of our politicians they're going to charge me as a terrorist acting against national security -- and I would deserve it.

      The tree of freedom requires the blood of politicians... or something like that. Violent overthrow is how the US came into existence.. All of of a sudden it's a bad thing? A nation that violates one's rights has no right to exist. We have the obligation to overthrow it, by whatever means.

    19. Re:Tiananmen Square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah yeah. I'm intentionally not picking some Middle Eastern country.

      Richard Reid was British, as much as the Republitards refuse to admit that not all terrorists come from Whateveristan. Of course, they have yet to explain why the Sauds got a free pass when the 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudi. Oh wait, it's because their beloved Bush had the Saudi prince's hand up his ass to make his lips flap.

    20. Re:Tiananmen Square by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      The truth is a national security risk in China.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    21. Re:Tiananmen Square by houghi · · Score: 1

      and guess which two words are always the reason

      Common sence?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    22. Re:Tiananmen Square by cparker15 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, lot's of things are claimed in the interest of "national security"... it's the most abused term since you can't possibly be against security of your nation (and yourself).

      I'm a masochistic anarchist, you insensitive clod!

      --
      Have you driven a fnord... lately?

      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.

  3. As you say by BlkRb0t · · Score: 1

    In my home it's my rules.

    1. Re:As you say by davidbrit2 · · Score: 1

      And Google doesn't have the balls to move out, apparently.

    2. Re:As you say by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I feel for google. On one hand their "Do no evil" mantra is merely window dressing if they in fact, do evil, which helping a repressive government surely is. On the other hand, not having a direct presence in an emerging market is incredibly harmful to a global business. In my opinion google need to at least pay lip service to the PRC but continue to out perform China's own Baidu. This is the short-coming of a repressive gov; if they continue to step on and censor superior technologies eventually people are going to shrug and circumvent the "accepted" technology in favor of the one that works.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    3. Re:As you say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they could just drop the whole "do no evil" mantra and be like every other corporation on the planet "we're in it for the money". Sure they'd be disgusting, but at least they wouldn't be hypocrites.

    4. Re:As you say by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Or you could, you know, open http://www.google.cn/ as see that it's NOT a censored version, it's a link for the UNCENSORED HK version.

      If someone is censoring it won't be Google itself - so yes, they have kept their "mantra" intact without closing Google China.

    5. Re:As you say by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>In my opinion google need to at least pay lip service to the PRC but continue to out perform China's own Baidu. This is the short-coming of a repressive gov;

      Its also a demonstration why its foolish to fear corporations while trusting government. Corporations are powerless in the face of government and its laws. As we see here with Google - they tried to do that right thing, and lost, because the government has guns and other means to force compliance.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  4. Are there any sources other than PRC bureaucrats? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The only source cited in the article is "Zhang Feng, director of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's Telecoms Development Department." I wouldn't put it past the Chinese government to lie about what Google is doing.

  5. Interpretation by cheatch · · Score: 0

    "avoid linking to material deemed a threat to national security or social stability"
    AKA, stop linking to any site that has the word 'capitalism', 'freedom', or 'democracy'. Check.

    1. Re:Interpretation by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "avoid linking to material deemed a threat to national security or social stability" AKA, stop linking to any site that has the word 'capitalism', 'freedom', or 'democracy'. Check.

      I don't think the Chinese have a problem with capitalism, so it is amusing that you equate it with freedom or democracy.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Interpretation by delinear · · Score: 1

      Similarly amusing to equate freedom and democracy. I live in a democracy where my freedoms have been eroded constantly by my own government in the name of chasing the terrorist bogeyman. It might be a world away from what's happening in China, but it's still hardly freedom.

    3. Re:Interpretation by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
      We had a Texan in office at one of the most emotionally disturbing activities to occur on American soil in 50+ years... it was almost like a bomb with a hair trigger, and poof.

      It's no longer a democracy, unfortunately. It's parliament at the circus. A thinly covered corporate veil, as well. Whenever a government activity is hindered because it could effect the bottom line of a company, it's just readily apparent.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    4. Re:Interpretation by treeves · · Score: 1

      The erosion of freedoms corresponds to the move away from democracy, so the equation of freedom and democracy is not invalid.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    5. Re:Interpretation by Toonol · · Score: 1

      I think freedom and capitalism are more intrinsically linked than freedom and democracy. In theory, there could be a constitutionally limited, human-rights respecting monarchy, under which subjects could live quite freely; but capitalism IS freedom, freedom of trade, and the right of property. China isn't capitalistic; they're socialistic. Their businesses are under the control of the state.

  6. Didn't they do this once already? by GammaKitsune · · Score: 1

    I could have sworn that Google bowed to China's censorship demands once before, and then retracted the censorship policy after wide-spread outcry. Or am I just misremembering things? Because if so, this seems pretty dishonest on Google's part. It's hard to make a statement about the importance of free speech if you keep changing your position on the subject. If I didn't know any better, I'd say the giant mega-corporation was just following the money.

    --
    Gamertag: WyleType
    1. Re:Didn't they do this once already? by cwtrex · · Score: 1

      I am wondering if isn't an identity crisis with Google. You have execs that have been hired from places where money is king, and then you have the old blood and original founders of Google attempting to still follow the "Do No Evil" mantra. I have a feeling that what we are seeing here will quiet possibly point us to Google's future behavior.

    2. Re:Didn't they do this once already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense, we were always allies with East Asia...they have always been our friends. We are at odds with Eurasia.

    3. Re:Didn't they do this once already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they pulled out of one the worlds largest economies because... that makes them *more* profitable? How does that work?

      Also, of course it's getting redirected to hong kong, that's the entire f__king point. They don't offer search in China so the china site "redirects" (The search bar is a link to the hk site) to the uncensored hk site. China often blocks certain parts of it with the Great Firewall, but Google does no censoring.

      P.S. Maybe you got modded down because the things you say are mindbogglingly stupid. Just a thought.

    4. Re:Didn't they do this once already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also could be that they could be sued by shareholders if they did decide to completely pull out of China.

    5. Re:Didn't they do this once already? by SensiMillia · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, from Beijing:

      surfing to http://google.cn/ will show you something that looks like google's homepage, only, it's just an image of the homepage. Clicking on it will lead you to google.com.hk. (the version in simplified Chinese characters)
      What changed a couple of weeks back is that they do not redirect you automatically, you just end up on this landing page.

      Interesting to note: passing a query directly to google.cn (from the search box in firefox), will just execute the query on google.com.hk

    6. Re:Didn't they do this once already? by icebraining · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google.cn is *not* censored! It's just a link to the uncensored HK version!

      http://www.google.cn/

      The only thing they "caved in" is they changed an automatic redirect to a full page link! How is that evil in any way? "Oh no, people must click once to be redirected! The horror, the horror!"

    7. Re:Didn't they do this once already? by delinear · · Score: 1

      I doubt that. It's true that, in most cases, the duty of the directors is to steer the company to generate money for the shareholders, and they can be liable if they fail to do this. In Google's case, however, the "Do No Evil" approach is so integral to their image, if they were to commit an act the world considered evil, the harm this would do to their image would be sufficient defence to argue against committing the act, even if it resulted in lesser profits. It's in neither the shareholders' nor the company's best interests to maximise profits at the expense of committing commercial suicide (whether it would actually make any difference to whether people used it is another matter, but the threat is probably sufficient that they can use it to justify taking the moral high ground at the expense of greater profits).

    8. Re:Didn't they do this once already? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>the duty of the directors is to steer the company to generate money for the shareholders, and they can be liable if they fail to do this.

      Unless the shareholders put Morality at a higher level than profit. Than Google's directors are not liable for anything, because they would be following the company's stated purpose (do no evil).

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re:Didn't they do this once already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>>the duty of the directors is to steer the company to generate money for the shareholders, and they can be liable if they fail to do this.

      Unless the shareholders put Morality at a higher level than profit. Than Google's directors are not liable for anything, because they would be following the company's stated purpose (do no evil).

      In theory that would be correct. Yet, in practice ownership is so defused for a corporations the size of Google it's often infeasible to ask even a quorum of the shareholders such questions and get an actionable answer. Thus, the tendency for most executives and people who plan on being executives to simply assume profits trump all other considerations for shareholders.

  7. in other words: Google turned off the NSA backdoor by kubitus · · Score: 1

    at least on the servers in China - if not also in HK

  8. Don't be evil. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Except in China.

    Or where we have to in order ot make (more) money.

    Or when it seems like a good idea at the time.

    I shouldn't be surprised. It's the natural evolution of a small, innovative company with some moral backbone into just yet another big company. Still, I'm disappointed in you, Google. You were once better than this.

    1. Re:Don't be evil. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Their new motto: Try not to be evil..... :-(

    2. Re:Don't be evil. by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

      You were once better than this.

      Not to be an ass, but when? When were they better than this in a meaningful way? When did they make a morally "right" decision, regardless of what it meant for their bottom line when a substantial amount of money was on the line?

      And I'm asking this seriously - I know they've "done the right thing" before but I cannot recall any example of them "doing the right thing" when a substantial amount of money was at risk. Doing the right thing when it might cost you a bit of pocket change is effortless. Doing the right thing when it really matters, however, is hard. And possibly, for a corporation, impossible. But, if I'm not recalling a time when Google made that tough choice, please feel free to remind me of when it was.

    3. Re:Don't be evil. by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      A company not participating at all has as much influence for the good in China as Xeyon Inc. of the Hedron Nebula has with us. (Never heard of them?) In other words, your argument is that Google should be like space aliens in regards to China.

      The other extreme is the role of IBM in the 3rd Reich, exacerbating the crimes committed by the Regime.

      China is bad but not Nazi Germany or Stalinist USSR bad. Google isn't helping them hold onto their regime. If anything, they are helping open China to the rest of the world and vice versa. The alternative is Baidu which offers no resistance whatsoever to their own government.

      Google can pack up their bags and sing to the choir here, but what good would that actually do?

    4. Re:Don't be evil. by delinear · · Score: 1

      Actually a refusal to co-operate at all can be effective, but only when it's universal. Your example of aliens, for instance - for all we know they have massively advanced technologies and we are suffering by the lack of any trade, but imagine if we were trading with other companies in the Hedron Nebula, but Xeyon Inc refused to trade with us - then they'd only be hurting themselves. To bring it back to Earth, the second Google pulled out, MS and the others would rush to fill the void, but if all companies outside China refused to do business with China it could make a real difference (in reality this will never happen, in which case your argument that Google can do more from the inside than the sidelines is of course right).

    5. Re:Don't be evil. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It's the natural evolution of a small, innovative company with some moral backbone into just yet another big company. Still, I'm disappointed in you, Google. You were once better than this.

      So was Microsoft. So was Sony. As you said, it's the tendancy of companies to become more evil as they become more big. Just hope they don't get "too big to fail".

    6. Re:Don't be evil. by SecurityGuy · · Score: 1

      This analysis only looks at one side of the issue: What does Google -do- to China? Does it help oppress the citizenry, or free them?

      There's another side to that. What -is- Google. It's a question of integrity (and incidentally, others have made the argument well that Google actually isn't censoring anything, they have stopped offering the services which the Chinese government required censored and will continue to offer only those that don't). I think that's reasonable, and retract my criticism.

      It's reasonable and laudable to say that we, as a company don't assist governments in oppressing their citizens. We don't offer bribes. We choose not to operate in markets where behaving ethically is an unsustainable strategy. If that means I never run a company with operations in Country X, so be it. Doing this also makes it easier for others to follow suit. Ethical companies (oxymoron?) fall into this trap because "everybody" does it so they "have" to. What if somebody stopped?

  9. so much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for Google's stand against censorship. No matter the 'high level strategic decisions", to me they just look stupid by taking a stand on such "high" grounds and then bowing like a whore for a (big) bunch of dollars

  10. Not true by Lomegor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although China did say that Google is censoring its web search, it's just not true. If you go to google.cn you can see that there is an image which takes you to Google Hong Kong. Even if you RTFA all through the comments you can see the answer from a Google PR person answering to his issue saying that they are NOT censoring web search, and that the only products which remain in China are those that can exist without censorship. This is just the Chinese government trying to make it appear as if they won. That is NOT true. Again, you can't search on google.cn and google.com.hk is not censored

    1. Re:Not true by underqualified · · Score: 1

      in fact, you can't do anything useful on google.cn

    2. Re:Not true by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I guess it just shows how effective the Chinese government propaganda machine is. Hopefully the Chinese themselves aren't as stupid as all the /.ers who are buying it.

      The only thing that has ended is automatic redirects, but that doesn't do anything for the Google haters, so they will say that Google has completely caved without bothering to find out what's really going on. Here's a hint haters: Xinhua is the LAST PLACE you ever want to look to find out what's really going on.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    3. Re:Not true by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      I'm going to reverse the order of your sentences because of the order in which the parts of the summary you seemingly did not understand happen to appear. I don't think it really changes the meaning or even the tone of your comment. I apologize if anyone finds this misleading.

      If you go to google.cn you can see that there is an image which takes you to Google Hong Kong.

      "China renewed Google's internet license after it pledged to obey censorship laws and stop automatically switching mainland users to its unfiltered Hong Kong site, an official said. The summary states that Google stopped using a redirect. You argue that since there is a link on the page, that is not true. Link != Redirect.

      Although China did say that Google is censoring its web search, it's just not true.

      Google promised to 'obey Chinese law' and avoid linking to material deemed a threat to national security or social stability, said Zhang Feng, director of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's Telecoms Development Department, at a news conference." And when he says this, he means, on google.cn. As in, Google promised to 'obey Chinese law' and avoid linking to material deemed a threat to national security or social stability on google.cn. Which they may well have done, or not. I'm not in China so I can't make a meaningful test. I don't think that this is a huge syntactic leap if you examine the statement even in the limited amount of context provided in the summary. Without any context, your understanding of his statement might make sense, and you can certainly be forgiven for not bothering to read the article; hell, I didn't either. But not reading the summary?

      Again, you can't search on google.cn and google.com.hk is not censored

      Oh, so you mean, you do agree with the story? So it is true? Comment fail.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Not true by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Funny

      China renewed Google's internet license after it pledged to obey censorship laws and stop automatically switching mainland users to its unfiltered Hong Kong site,

      it's just not true. If you go to google.cn you can see that there is an image which [if clicked] takes you to Google Hong Kong.

      Fixed your post for you. Now, what part of "automatically" is confusing you? Do you need me to break out the <blink> tag? I'll do it. I'll do it, man. I'm a troll on the edge.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    5. Re:Not true by geekoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      r maybe he did read the story and is basing it on that and the summary is wrong?

      I mean, really,you are admitting you are ignorant of the article and still correcting someone else bevasue you think they are ignorant.

      Do you see the flaw there?

      I haven't read it either, but I'm not correcting people. I have seen far to many summaries and headline be completely wrong. Sometime they have been so fictitious you can't even call them wrong.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Not true by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Everything you just said was accurate, and none of it was true.

      The tone of the article is that Google will no longer be serving unfiltered search results to users in mainland China. The GPP clearly refuted that tone showing that Google was still making unfiltered search available. Despite what Futurama says, being technically correct isn't the best kind of correct.

    7. Re:Not true by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I haven't read it either, but I'm not correcting people

      What do you call this comment, besides ironic?

      I have now skimmed TFA and verified my assumption that the elements of the summary which appeared in quotes and which I quoted in turn appeared in the article verbatim. Or in other words, the summary indeed contained all I needed to know to critique his comment, which I correctly discerned by reading it and observing where his comment agreed with it, and thus contradicted itself. Why don't you check yourself before you wriggy wreck yourself?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Not true by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Xinhua: News Corp with Government Sponsorship!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    9. Re:Not true by icebraining · · Score: 1

      "The summary states that Google stopped using a redirect. You argue that since there is a link on the page, that is not true. Link != Redirect.!"

      It's a damn FULL-PAGE LINK! You can't do *anything* else except clicking the link! Effectively, it's a manual redirect, but still a redirect.

    10. Re:Not true by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      I'm going to reverse the order of your sentences because of the order in which the parts of the summary you seemingly did not understand happen to appear. I don't think it really changes the meaning or even the tone of your comment. I apologize if anyone finds this misleading.

      And that's the exact kind of mental gymnastics going on here. If you strip out context and follow the exact wording of the statement, it is all true and factual. But you have to go out of your way to divorce all other reasoning. The implication of the article is exactly what the OP is denouncing. But those are merely implied, not outright stated.

      It looks like everyone is playing a game here. All sides are committing to a polite fiction so that neither side has to capitulate to the other's incompatible stance.

    11. Re:Not true by Lomegor · · Score: 1

      China renewed Google's internet license after it pledged to obey censorship laws and stop automatically switching mainland users to its unfiltered Hong Kong site, an official said
      The problem is, I believe, although IANAL, that there is no law against automatically redirecting. And saying it like this, it seems that Google has started censoring again. Although it is not explicit I can safely assume from the amount of comments in this section that people understood this sentence as if it said that Google has started censoring again. It's a problem with natural language, it's vague, and this, as it seems, purposely leave the question if google.cn is censoring again.

      Google promised to 'obey Chinese law' and avoid linking to material deemed a threat to national security or social stability, said Zhang Feng, director of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's Telecoms Development Department, at a news conference.
      Yes, they did stop doing that, just that they did it years ago when they started censoring google.cn; not relevant. google.cn was always censored since it began, so it makes no sense pointing it out.

      Again, you can't search on google.cn and google.com.hk is not censored
      Oh, so you mean, you do agree with the story? So it is true? Comment fail.
      No, I didn't say that. RTFA and see that it implicitly says that Google.cn is censored. If we start saying that things that do not have infringing material are censored, I can safely assume that gardening.org is also censored. Oh, the humanity!

      Read the comments above mine and see if people understood the same thing you did. If you believe they did, then you are right, I failed at my comment; but I believe it's clear that people understood it wrong, and, as many comments above and below mine, I think that it was necessary for people to read and not get the image that google stepped down on it's promise to stop censoring.

    12. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "image" in question looks exactly like the Google Search bar; there's no way to do an actual search on google.cn. Go look at it for yourself.

      I find this "compromise" hilarious.

    13. Re:Not true by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      Which brings me to my final point, ladies and gentlemen: Don't smoke crack.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    14. Re:Not true by Qwavel · · Score: 1

      Yes, thanks for that clarification.

      Have we reached the point that even on a technical site like this, the editors just accept what the Chinese government (or any gov't) says, without making the slightest effort to check it? Is that the level of discourse now?

      There has generally been a lot of confusion on this issue and this is really sad. A lot of people just read headlines and a headline such as this item has would give them totally incorrect information.

      It is important that Google is judged on what they really did, and not on what the Chinese gov't says they did. Otherwise, it would make more sense for them to totally sell out and spend the money controlling the message.

      I'm not sure whether to be frustrated, angry, or sad.

    15. Re:Not true by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      There's human intervention required.
      That shows intent and that a conscious decision has been made by the user.

      Either evidence at your trial, or, if 250,000,000,000 Chinese click that link, useful demographic information.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    16. Re:Not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if it is in a slashdot summary, or posted as an article on the internet, it clearly must be true!

      Next I am sure you will be off to argue that the summary quoting the Onion article is also factual and really happened

    17. Re:Not true by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Trial for accessing Google? Please. What could the Chinese government possibly gain with that? If you search for banned keywords, I might get it. But just for clicking on the normal search box to type? (have you checked the site?)
        Besides, accessing Google in the first place is a conscious decision most of the time.

      As for demographic, how is any different analyzing a redirect or a clicked link? Everyone that accesses Google.cn will click the link.

      Me thinks you haven't checked google.cn.

  11. Money money money by boxxa · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Guess they took a pretty big hit not having a billion people visit your page viewing ads.

    --
    Bryan
  12. Publicity stunt? by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 0, Troll

    So in essence all that posturing about defending human rights, freedom of expression and standing against censorship was a marketing ploy to try to mask their acceptance and embracing of totalitarian practices, all in order to worship the all mighty dollar (or euro, yen, or any other currency).

    This makes articles such as http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/22/china-google-withdrawal-shows-government-intransigence">this one, where Google is praised for their support for basic human rights, was in essence a exercise in hypocrisy.

    --
    Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    1. Re:Publicity stunt? by xtracto · · Score: 1

      This makes articles such as http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/22/china-google-withdrawal-shows-government-intransigence [slashdot.org]">this one, where Google is praised for their support for basic human rights, was in essence a exercise in hypocrisy.

      http://yro.slashdot.org/ahref=
      OMG, teh Google censored Slashdot!!

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:Publicity stunt? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      This makes articles such as http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/03/22/china-google-withdrawal-shows-government-intransigence">this one, where Google is praised for their support for basic human rights, was in essence a exercise in hypocrisy.

      No, it just makes it an exercise in naiveté.

      P.S. HTML FAIL OMFG WTF BBQ

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Publicity stunt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Publicity stunt? by Anonymusing · · Score: 2, Informative
      So in essence all that posturing about defending human rights, freedom of expression and standing against censorship was a marketing ploy to try to mask their acceptance and embracing of totalitarian practices, all in order to worship the all mighty dollar (or euro, yen, or any other currency).

      Read the article. Then actually visit google.cn. Google managed to find a loophole in it all: they still offer uncensored searching (via their site in Hong Kong) and there is no site search capability on their China-based site. It comes down to a remarkably silly technicality that, somehow, China decided to approve.

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
    5. Re:Publicity stunt? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      It comes down to a remarkably silly technicality that, somehow, China decided to approve.

      Maybe China's government has finally come to its senses -- somewhat --, and tries to backtrack a little bit by loosening their grip on the Internet... without losing face. I wished our western governments would backtrack on their biggest red herring as well (draconian Copyright!), but currently I see their stance worsening, instead of getting better (ACTA). Or, said differently, China may be moving in the right direction, while we are sliding backwards in terms of freedom. I guess, we'll meet in the middle someday: we feeling worse, them feeling better.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    6. Re:Publicity stunt? by maugle · · Score: 1

      All governments are, to varying extents, bloated soul-crushing bureaucracies. They live for silly technicalities.

    7. Re:Publicity stunt? by Anonymusing · · Score: 1

      I wished our western governments would backtrack on their biggest red herring as well (draconian Copyright!)

      This cannot happen as long as "Mine! Mine! Mine!" remains the defining attitude of Western culture. (Or at least American culture.)

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
  13. Oh my! by SimonInOz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's hope China does no evil.

    --
    "Cats like plain crisps"
  14. RTFA and it's comments by Nzimmer911 · · Score: 5, Informative

    They didn't bow at all. In Google's own words in the article's comment section: This piece suggests that Google has "bowed" to censorship. That is not correct. We have been very clear about our committment to not censor our products for users in China. The products we have kept on Google.cn (Music, Translate, Product Search) do not require any censorship by Google. Other products, like web search, we are offering from Google.com.hk, and without censorship Lucinda Barlow, Head of Public Affairs, Google AU/NZ - July 21, 2010, 2:43PM

    1. Re:RTFA and it's comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LTFG and the difference between "it's" and "its". :-)

    2. Re:RTFA and it's comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Major news outlets have some pretty specific standards, unlike ./ which will basically post any BS summary even if it has sh*t to do with The Fine Article. Major news outlets (AP) report only information that is passed to them through specific channels which are vetted and carefully positioned to avoid public censure. Although this results in a lot of mind-control and bias, and the news is by no means 'true', it is much, much more reliable as a 'one stop' news source than Slashdot (let's face it, people don't RTFA and just start spouting off at the mouth based on the headlines, in the same exact way that people do when they read a headline from a major news source). So, that's why NBC won't report on Google 'bowing to censorship demands' because that's a misleading headline. TFA doesn't indicate that unequivocally (in fact in the specifics it seems Google has done a pretty good job of keeping their integrity here), and NBC only reports misleading headlines and false news stories if directed to do so by a global security authority.

      Having said that, all news has its place and its best to form an opinion based on a range of sources, and in my opinion Slashdot's strength is not in the accuracy of the reporting or headlines, but in the fact that it brings relevant links and information to a discerning reader who can then draw his own conclusions. As someone once said of the internet, it makes smart people smarter, and dumb people dumber.

    3. Re:RTFA and it's comments by Mgns · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that they are still doing automatic redirect to the Hong Kong version. The search bar on google.cn is now a cute little element that links to www.google.com.hk.

      So even if you don't understand that the plainly marked link below will give you uncensored search, you're just herded to the hk version anyway.

    4. Re:RTFA and it's comments by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      I agree; they basically made it idiot-proof.

      Link: http://www.google.cn/

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    5. Re:RTFA and it's comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Major news outlets have some pretty specific standards

      That is, of course, except Fox "News".

    6. Re:RTFA and it's comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      please let me know:

      : is the NSA backdoor on google.cn now blocked?

    7. Re:RTFA and it's comments by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      No, Fox "News" (in quotes because they claim that they themselves are not news) has pretty specific standards, they are just different standards than the ones you'd like, or that AP uses.

  15. That's what China says by mmmmbeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Personally, I don't trust one word of what comes from China's propagandists. Does anyone know of any press release from Google about this?

  16. Way to do the right thing Google! by Chas · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Pardon me while I sigh in disgust.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  17. Re:do evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who needs catchy slogans when you have shitloads of money?

  18. Re:do evil by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So much for do no evil.

    To be fair, when I search for the (WARNING, graphic images) taboo words on the HK site they take me to from Google.cn, I find the "social stability" threatening images linked to by Google.

    If bowing to China is making the user take a single additional click from the google.cn landing page and bringing them right to unfiltered internet searches, that's some pretty lame bowing. I guess if both parties are happy and the Chinese people can very easily get to unfiltered search then I'm happy. Or does Google's Hong Kong search work differently inside China? If it works the same way as I see, I don't know how you could consider that evil. I perceive that Google has succeeded in granting the people of greater China with unfiltered search if they can tolerate an additional mouse click. This is assuming the Great Firewall of China or some government monitoring agency isn't watching these Google.cn -> Google.hk transactions.

    How is attempting to bring unfiltered search to the people of China evil?

    --
    My work here is dung.
  19. Re:Money silences by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    Or so companies think.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  20. Not quite the case: Google HK still uncensored by michuk · · Score: 5, Informative

    As The Wired already explained a couple of days ago ( http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/07/google-china-fiction/ ) what Google and Chinese government agreed on is pure fiction. Google doesn't redirect Chinese users to the Honk Kong search engine automatically, but there is a button to easily switch and google.hk is left uncensored in China, meaning that the Chinese can still search Google without filtering. The article linked by Slashdot as the source presents the Chinese official version of the story which obviously hides the above fact.

    --
    Polish your GNU/Linux! http://polishlinux.org
    1. Re:Not quite the case: Google HK still uncensored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but there is a button to easily switch

      The "button" is actually the entire page except a few links. Try for yourself.

    2. Re:Not quite the case: Google HK still uncensored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What good are unfiltered searchs if links, return from the searchs, are not accessible?

    3. Re:Not quite the case: Google HK still uncensored by icebraining · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's not the point - the point is the censoring is done by China, not Google.

      Besides, yes, it's *much* better to have a blocked page than for the results to have simply disappear: at least people *know* they are being censored.

    4. Re:Not quite the case: Google HK still uncensored by delinear · · Score: 1

      At the very least that shows people behind the firewall that certain things are being censored. China's original stance was that Google should be complicit in the censorship by hiding even this fact and just removing blacklisted sites from the search results. If you've never lived in a democracy and you google "democracy" and get zero results (or every page in the results is a negative opinion of democracy) you might get the viewpoint that democracy is bad. If you do the same search and most of the links are firewalled, you might wonder exactly what they're trying to hide (also, Google cache seems to work, although what the exact position is behind the firewall we can't really say).

    5. Re:Not quite the case: Google HK still uncensored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As The Wired already explained a couple of days ago ( http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/07/google-china-fiction/ ) what Google and Chinese government agreed on is pure fiction.

      This sort of thing has happened before between the PRC and Western organizations, like how the Shanghai Communique handled the PRC's wish that the USA honor the "One China Policy". Everyone's favorite Nobel Peace Prize winner, Henry Kissinger, even coined a term for it. "constructive ambiguity".

  21. This ran through my head reading the summary... by lorenlal · · Score: 0

    well, I know you can't work in fast food all your life
    but don't sign that paper tonight, she said,
    but it's too late.

    And I don't remember what I read,
    don't remember what they said,
    I guess it doesn't matter,
    I guess it doesn't matter anymore.

    1. Re:This ran through my head reading the summary... by wickedskaman · · Score: 1

      A rare... Reel Big Fish reference.

      --
      Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.
    2. Re:This ran through my head reading the summary... by lorenlal · · Score: 1

      Apparently the mods didn't catch the name of the song. This resulted in them missing what I was trying to imply on the part of Google.

      That, or maybe my attempt to not post the usual memes just wasn't that good.

    3. Re:This ran through my head reading the summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe nobody cares about shitty nerd ska bands from Orange County who were only "popular" from the mid to late 1990s.

  22. Trolling.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Google did not censorship anything. The only change they did is: instead of automatically redirecting to .hk domain now the users have to click the big picture on the page to be redirected.

    Wasn't there a similar article on /. before?

  23. Ummmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The change is that instead of forwarding to an unfiltered search automatically users now have to click to get there. Seems like a decent compromise to me...

  24. Re:do evil by bhagwad · · Score: 5, Informative

    Do you even know what's happened? Just visit the google.cn page will ya? The whole thing's a bit button that takes you to an uncensored site.
    Bowing to censorship my ass! If that's bowing to censorship, then more of us need to do the same!

  25. Re:Money silences by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure Alaska would let you club a baby seal if nobody objected to it. It's nature! and tourism! all in one!

  26. Re:do evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Are you IN China, getting filtered?

    No.

    So your results are meaningless.

  27. Hmmm let's see... by boneclinkz · · Score: 2, Funny

    O-p-p-r-e-s-s-i-v-e G-o-v-e-r-n-m-e-n-t

    [Google Search]

    "Your search - Oppressive Government - did not match any documents."

    "Did you mean Outstanding Government?"

    1. Re:Hmmm let's see... by Anonymusing · · Score: 1

      Well, while we are at it... link.

      --
      Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
  28. Reverse Filter for the rest of the world please by RichMan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So if google is filtering "material deemed a threat to national security or social stability" from within China. Can we on the outside set it up so we can only browse the material that would be filtered within China. I think it would be educational to browse a volume of material that was "deemed a threat to national security or social stability" of China, it might also be a source of much amusement.

  29. Naational Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. ACTA drafts too have been kept secret in the interest of national security by the US government.

  30. Completely Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The summary is stupid (as in has no basis in reality at all). Has the author even gone to google.cn? It simply present an image of the first page (no search input form), and clicking it immediately redirects to Google Hong Kong, which is not censored. And yet all of you will now decry how evil Google is. It's amazing that they actually beat China and are in fact allowed to do a full uncensored search.

  31. Re:do evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would interest me is the exact same search phrase on baidu

    Baidu

  32. Google should pull out of the USA first then china by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US does allot to curtail freedom as well. It denies people freedom to print whatever they damm well please. If Google should do anything it is to setup in a country where it isn't regulated and stop filtering altogether.

  33. Re:do evil by Major+Blud · · Score: 1

    It's amazing how 90% of the people flaming Google about this haven't tried to actually visit google.cn for themselves to see this first hand. Even the big news outlets don't seem to have tried this.

    The whole thing is actually funny, and I'm surprised that the Chinese government is fine with the manual-redirect. I think what Google did is very clever and is a big win for them.

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  34. error 404 by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 0, Troll

    Google promised to 'obey Chinese law' and avoid linking to material deemed a threat to national security or social stability

    So basically Chinese Google will not be connected to the internet.

  35. Bowing is a Japanese thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bending over is a Chinese thing, or so it would seem as far as it goes with Google.

    Seriously. Google has as a company a responsibility to it's shareholder to advantage whatever market there is. Being in China is strictly a business decision. Customers are the ones that decide who they want to do business with. That is your choice and the only thing that influences what perhaps a company considers good business decisions.

    1. Re:Bowing is a Japanese thing by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Doing the right thing and not being evil is a good business decision. For google, I'd say it's vital as a lot of people worry about their potential for evil, which is vast. But a CEO can do practically ANYTHING and justify it as good for the company.

  36. All hail China! by __aailob1448 · · Score: 1, Funny

    The time has come to let go of our juvenile and silly notions of individual freedoms and embrace the blessings of a single stable, hard working party.

    I applaud google for showing proper respect to the people of china.

  37. The Almighty Doll^H^H^H^H Renminbi, news at 11. by tommituura · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So. Like all corporations, when push comes to shove, they'll bow to the almighty Dollar - or in this case and probably moreso in future, Renminbi. News at 11.

    1. Re:The Almighty Doll^H^H^H^H Renminbi, news at 11. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking retard.

  38. Can we mod the story "-1, propaganda" please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I don't defend Google often, but in this case the story is willfully misleading. Google China is no longer offering web search and links to Google Hong Kong instead. It used to redirect, now the users have to click once. Yes, Google obeys the censorship laws, but it does so by not offering the service from China at all.

    1. Re:Can we mod the story "-1, propaganda" please? by BangaIorean · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Tell me something - does the same thing happen when you access google.cn from within China? I mean, this whole business of having a huge clickable image to get around censorship seems extremely long winded! By any chance is it our non-Chinese IPs that are causing that page to be displayed? Does anyone have access to a proxy server within mainland China (VPN or something)?

    2. Re:Can we mod the story "-1, propaganda" please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried this proxy and got the same page where you can click anywhere to go to Google Hong Kong: 221.130.17.48:80.

  39. Re:do evil by Anonymusing · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just visit the google.cn page will ya? The whole thing's a bit button that takes you to an uncensored site.

    Seriously. It's not even hidden: it says "google.com.hk" in enormous letters right on it. The only other links go to the music, translation, and product links.

    But, this is Slashdot, where it is rare to RTFA or, heaven forbid, try to experience the thing.

    Aside: it's kind of funny to read the various headlines about this. Some say that China "approved" the Google request; others say China "compromised"; others say the two "make nice" with each other; others call it a "miracle"; still others say Google blew it. A crazy range of opinion there.

    --
    Liberal? Conservative? Compare perspectives at Left-Right
  40. What's New? by ChoboMog · · Score: 1

    How is this bowing to pressure, or even a change (beyond a renewed license) from what the status quo has been for at least a few weeks?

    1. Google isn't automatically redirecting users from its Mainland to its (uncensored) Hong Kong page any more, which is keeping the government sweet and fulfilling its legal requirements. It has a static page saying that its search function has moved to google.com.hk and will link you to it if clicked.

    2. Google isn''t censoring any search results since they are all returned through the above mentioned page in Hong Kong.

    3. Other google services (Gmail, Docs etc) remain, but with varying levels of availability. See: http://www.google.com/prc/report.html

    4. Both parties continue posturing; with one trying to win a PR battle in the global media while not losing out entirely on a huge market, and the other focusing on their domestic media/politics seeing no reason to bow to the pressure of a foreign corporation over state laws.

  41. All hail Google! by __aailob1448 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just kidding. Google did the right thing. I wholeheartedly applaud the googlers for their courage and deftness in turning the google hacking crisis into an opportunity.

      Bravo to you sirs! Bravo indeed!

    Clap Clap Clap

  42. is there a Chinaman in the house? by snookerhog · · Score: 1, Troll

    What we really need is a slashdotter in China that can verify what is happening first hand. What?! no slashdotters in China?!?!!? they must be blocking /. as well :)

    1. Re:is there a Chinaman in the house? by VendettaMF · · Score: 1

      Including myself I know 3 regular slashdot posters in China.
      Right now the google.cn front page is one big image (which looks like a variant of the google basic page) link to
      http://www.google.com.hk/webhp?hl=zh-CN&sourceid=cnhp

      with three text links to
      http://www.google.cn/music/homepage?sourceid=cnhp
      http://translate.google.cn/?sourceid=cnhp#
      and
      http://www.google.cn/products?sourceid=cnhp
      underneath it.
      The only other item on the page is a small text link to http://www.miibeian.gov.cn/, which looks to be a license or copyright statement.

      --
      kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
    2. Re:is there a Chinaman in the house? by electron+sponge · · Score: 1

      What the fuck are you talking about? The Chinaman is not the issue here, Dude. I'm talking about drawing a line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

    3. Re:is there a Chinaman in the house? by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Also, Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

      I don't think Chinese people want to be called Asian-Americans. That smacks of potential takeover...

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  43. Another company by geekoid · · Score: 0, Troll

    tosses away the very American Ideals that made it possible for the opportunity to suck at china's cock.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Another company by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      If you had read any of the +5 insightfuls up above you'd realize how full of shit you just sounded.

  44. Article title = fail by kikito · · Score: 2, Funny

    Come on guys. At least read the whole thing, and not just the title, before publishing. And I mean the comments too.

  45. I'm More Worried About Google's Censorship Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Why are people so concerned about Google censoring search results in China while being seemingly unconcerned about them censoring search results in the west? We see regular examples of porn sites being removed from the index, searches related to Islam being filtered and other content such as the Michelle Obama image being deemed unstable by our Google overlords. What's more worrying is what you don't hear about and we can only guess at just how far Google's censorship of the web extends.

    Google likes to maintain the public image that it's all for free speech while in private it seeks to dictate exactly what web users should and should not see. Before people start whining about censorship in China I think it's important that we sort out the growing issues of censorship in the west.

    1. Re:I'm More Worried About Google's Censorship Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Recent example of Google's "editing" when General Petraeus was nominated by Obama to replace McChrystal In Afghanistan, Moveon.org removed their General Betrayus ad from their site, and google cleared the cache of the same item...

    2. Re:I'm More Worried About Google's Censorship Here by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call that censorship.. that's fixing a political advertisement.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  46. China loves MJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It sounds to me that China is just blustering and wants the world to preceive that they has squashed Google under their collective thumb even though they haven't. The question is will Google publicly correct them? If not, China will have inched their way towards making "a lie become the truth".

  47. Re:do evil by molnarcs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree completely. This is a clever albeit transparent trick on the part of Google to let Chinese save face. Make no mistake, China didn't want Google to leave completely, that would've been an international PR disaster (apart from the job loss and other collateral damages). Naturally, Google didn't want to go either, loosing all the business opportunities in China. Most importantly, those services that they don't have to filter anyway, like music, product search, etc. So Google pretended to do something and yield to the Chinese government's demands, and China gladly accepted this opportunity to get out of this impasse (their license to operate in China covers everything, not only search). There's a reason I use pretended - I mean what Google did is very very close to nothing, just check out http://www.google.cn/ - and click anywhere on the screen. This "concession" is a joke, and it was a dangerous gamble on Google's part, since depending on how you look at it, this can be seen as China loosing face (actually bowing to Google's demands) instead the other way around. It also shows the kind of bargaining power Google has. For what exactly did China gain? Well, see for yourself, just goo ahead and visit google.cn and search for something :))

  48. How is this bowing to pressure by nexttech · · Score: 1

    I don't see how this is bowing to Chinese pressure. Once someone clicks one extra link they have access to the same information the rest of us have.

    Google has set an example that the rest of the world needs to follow.

  49. Re:Wow, big surprise by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Guess a google employee got his mod points today. Truth hurt, sparky?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  50. So? by davmoo · · Score: 1

    Loopholes and such aside, why is this so surprising?

    When a company operates here in the US we expect them to obey US law, even on the web, regardless of where they may happen to originate. For an example, look how hard the US works to ban online gambling, even when the companies involved are not physically located in the US, and just operate here via the web. (Whether or not the US is successful at this is a whole 'nother topic, which I won't get in to here.)

    Why does everyone expect Google to obey anything other than Chinese law when it operates in China?

    --
    I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
    1. Re:So? by ADRA · · Score: 1

      I think everyone assumes that Google or any other business that doesn't bribe heavily to follow the laws of the land they operate in. The controversy surrounding Google and China has typically resolved around ethics instead of laws.

      Google's corporate mantra is to 'do no evil', and in their general opinion government censorship is a bad thing with the exception or child porn I imagine. Up to a few months ago, Google actively supported the China's censorship program by restricting the results returned in their search results pages. At some point around then, the company had some spat with the Chinese gov and decided that they could no longer filter results. Because its against the law to host these uncensored results in mainland China, Google simply redirected search box searches to servers in Hong Kong (Part of China, though heavily relaxed liberties due to British possession 1999). Hong Kong doesn't require censorship like mainland China does, so Google can host their searches there without the guilt of being a part of the censorship. The government had an issue with this as well, because google.cn was still 'actively' generating results even though all real work was done from Hong Kong servers. The latest 'fix' by Google was to replace the text input box with a button that was a direct link to Google's uncensored Hong Kong search engine. This all said, the Chinese government still has the Great Firewall, so that any content linked out from Google's search results can still be blocked for mainland citizens, but at least Google can claim that they can't control what the government does with its pipes.

      --
      Bye!
  51. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because you goto google.cn and you don't what you believe to be are filtered results, does not mean it isn't filtered.

    YOU'RE NOT IN CHINA.

  52. Re:do evil by delinear · · Score: 1

    I actually tried this (visiting Google China and clicking through to HK) a week ago when I read about it elsewhere, so when I read this story today I assumed they'd changed their stance again. It turns out it was just the /. one-week breaking news time delay effect (or else this is a dupe and it was here I originally read about it). I wonder how many of the people accusing Google are doing so from the basis of the same misunderstanding (of course, it's still arguable they should have checked the site first, but at least the confusion is a tad more understandable in that case).

  53. Re:do evil by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    How is attempting to bring unfiltered search to the people of China evil?

    Because it's Google. And for some around here, Google can do naught but evil. Because they're a corporation, and managed to make some money, or something like that. I really don't understand the sentiment. I didn't think CmdrTaco was in that crowd, but go figure.

  54. Re:Wow, big surprise by icebraining · · Score: 3, Informative

    They are NOT censoring. *All* the search are still done in the UNCENSORED HK version. All they did was turn a automatic redirect into a full page link, effectively a loophole to comply with the letter of the law but not with the intent of the Chinese government.

  55. Re:Wow, big surprise by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    If you had read any of the +5 insightuls above, you'd understand the mod.
    It is a PR stunt. It is making Google money. And they are providing normals searches to china. (plus one click)

  56. Re:do evil by plasticsquirrel · · Score: 1

    The way the filtering often works is based on the content of the page. If it finds an unacceptable string, it will give the user a "time-out" from the website for a few minutes. Then the user can go back later and access the site, but trying the same thing will result in another time-out. This isn't so common with Google search results, but it does happen, and even with sites like Wikipedia.

    Most Google Images search results will not display any thumbnail. I always assumed that the Chinese government would block the individual Google servers hosting the thumbnail images, but that the servers often change so it would only be partial. Controversial images would probably not be viewable.

    However, the relationship between the Chinese people and their government is quite different from what most Slashdotters would expect. Most Chinese people will only say good things about the government, and won't even disagree with the Internet filtering. I've had discussions with people in China about this a number of times. It's definitely not a "government vs. the people" view that we are so accustomed to in the U.S.

    --
    Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
  57. Re:Wow, big surprise by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    Guess a google employee got his mod points today. Truth hurt, sparky?

    You realize you're responding to yourself, and calling yourself sparky, right?

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  58. Re:do evil by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It also shows the kind of bargaining power Google has.

    I have to agree. China has huge numbers of people and manufacturing might. Google can process and utilize amounts of data that are unfathomable to a typical person. China is a couple decades late to the power struggle. It's all about data now.

  59. Re:do evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you have a China proxy that we can use to ensure that's what mainland China people see when they visit google.cn?

    Thanks.

  60. Re:do evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's a dupe. Just this one has a more confusing way to it, for fun.

  61. Re:do evil by hackingbear · · Score: 1

    For what exactly did China gain? Well, see for yourself, just goo ahead and visit google.cn [google.cn] and search for something :))

    What they get (or retain) is that the search results are filtered as seen from China, not by Google but by the GWF filters everything through, including google.com.hk or google.com

    Though allowing a landing page is saving face by covering the eyes. The landing page would show the differences between HK and mainland more prominently than a silent redirect! The officials asking for or approving that seem just fooling their bosses that they have done something.

  62. Sleeping with the enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess money is more important to Google than standing up to a nation who has violently violated human rights. US green back is more important than people's freedom, go Google! Don't be evil includes not sleeping with the enemy.

  63. "...a threat to national security or stability..." by tlambert · · Score: 1

    "...a threat to national security or stability..."

    Assuming Google filters this out, then there ought to be a list somewhere of "stuff we filtered out". This will make it much easier to find things to threaten and/or destabilize, should someone want to do that.

    Just saying... "One Stop Shopping for Anarchists" is probably not what China had in mind here...

    -- Terry

  64. Re:do evil by poity · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm reading Slashdot from China at the moment.
    That link causes an immediate connection reset from the ISP (Chrome: Error 101 (net::ERR_CONNECTION_RESET): Unknown error.)
    This happens every time something forbidden is accessed, and the entire domain will be inaccessible from this IP address for about 10 minutes

    Google may not be censoring itself but when the censorship happens at the ISP level there's nothing they can do.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  65. Re:do evil by poity · · Score: 1

    Uncensored for the rest of the world.
    Search (tiananmen) and the connection resets and you're locked out of the google.com.hk domain for a few minutes. I'm sure this happens at the ISP level because the connection reset is immediate.

    In fact, I doubt this message will even submit now that I've typed those words in here.
    Here's hoping it works.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll