Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Begins Country-Specific Blog Censorship

Posted by samzenpus on from the not-for-your-eyes dept.

bonch writes "Google will begin redirecting blogs to country-specific URLs. Blog visitors will be redirected to a URL specific to their location, with content subject to their country's censorship laws. A support post on Blogger explains the change: 'Over the coming weeks you might notice that the URL of a blog you're reading has been redirected to a country-code top level domain, or "ccTLD." For example, if you're in Australia and viewing [blogname].blogspot.com, you might be redirected to [blogname].blogspot.com.au. A ccTLD, when it appears, corresponds with the country of the reader's current location.'"

6 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. So much for... by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


    So much for Do No Evil. I'm sure it will be spun into how this makes Blogger a better experience for everyone.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:So much for... by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So much for Do No Evil. I'm sure it will be spun into how this makes Blogger a better experience for everyone.

      Actually, yes, yes it will. Instead of being forced by law to remove the content from everyone's view or be forceably blocked by that country (or sued), Google is allowing everyone else to see the censored content, and only blocking it where the law demands it.

      Respecting the law of a country is not "evil". It may not be the right thing to do (depends on the country and law at hand, certain laws/governments are unjust and should be protested), but it is also not evil.

      Oh, and you can still see the censored content anyways (www.google.com/ncr), so, there is that, also.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:So much for... by Artraze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Define "not actually in", because after a quick search:
      http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/locations/

      We see they have an office in Australia, which was the domain used in the summary. And quite a few around the globe, of particular note is China, which is so often the center of discussions like these. Also, Thailand, which I believe was brought up with regards to Twitter and blocking posts critical of their king.

      Are you suggesting that because their corporate HQ isn't there that "they" aren't there? Or are you suggesting that they don't _need_ to be in those locations, and so could pull out?

      Finally, I'll note that you said "enforcing questionable laws". Don't you mean "evil laws"? I mean, if obeying the law is evil, then surely that law is evil, right? Or does it only become evil when enforced by Google because they aren't entire present where the law matters?

      I dunno. This always gets so confusing. Like, why isn't Google evil for taking down ads for Canadian pharmaceuticals at the request of the FDA? Actually, I seem to recall people were saying they were evil for allowing the ads in the first place. Maybe it's that HQ thing again... That "good" is upholding American (oh, like specifically the USofAmerican) laws and ideals and "evil" is upholding the laws of other countries in those countries because their HQ is in the USA?

    3. Re:So much for... by Asic+Eng · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apart from the censorship angle, this redirection stuff is pretty annoying when traveling. Just because I'm in Korea this week, doesn't mean I can read Korean. I didn't enter the URL for the Korean page either, so why do they insist on giving me what I didn't ask for?

  2. Re:Completely Misleading by Artraze · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Absurd how?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany
    "Membership in a Nazi party, incitement of hatred against a segment of the population (Volksverhetzung) and Holocaust denial are illegal in Germany. Publishing, television, public correspondence (including lectures), and music are censored accordingly, with legal consequences that may include jail time."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition
    "Saudi Arabia completely bans the production, importation or consumption of alcohol and imposes strict penalties on those violating the ban, including weeks to months of imprisonment, and possible lashes."

    So.... Wut? They're absurd because... they don't ruffle your ideological feathers?

    Are you honestly trying to say that Google should be part of a process that you admit is "extremely difficult and often bloody"? If we're talking about people lives here, why don't we talk about the lives of their employees in these countries, who could be arrested under some kind of 'conspiracy to undermine public welfare' or what have you?

    And the real question is, why Google? Why not you? You could run a tor node. You could host simple blogs; it's quite cheap. And you even have the advantage over Google because you don't have any connection to these countries and those don't have to worry about your employees being arrested.

    Or right, sorry, you said already:
    They're big and have the greater responsibility to enforce your morals.

  3. Re:Blogger only - it seems by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Helping a totalitarian regime pretend like they allow free speech by allowing only speech they approve, furthers their goals. Google is playing the roll of Uncle Tom or the Jewish police in the Nazi ghettos. When they allow Syria to censor speech, what argument will they have when the US government asks them to censor speech? Do you really think that's not coming? The world is slipping into a very dark place right now, and every concession that providers like Google make, will be looked upon with shame by future generations.