Google Begins Country-Specific Blog Censorship

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Begins Country-Specific Blog Censorship

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday February 1, 2012 @09:41AM 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.'"

73 of 250 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Blogger only - it seems by icebike · 2012-02-01 09:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

This only works toward reducing the trustworthiness of Blogger as a blogging platform.
Blogs dealing with sensitive topics in certain countries will simply go elsewhere. Yes that elsewhere runs the risk of being blocked by that
country, but at least it will be that county doing the blocking, not Google.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
1. Re:Blogger only - it seems by eugene2k · 2012-02-01 09:58 · Score: 2
  
  And what difference would that make to the people of that country? None, right? So what's better: having absolutely no access to blogger blogs in your country or having access to some of the blogs using that platform?
  
  --
  Apple has "Mac vs PC", Microsoft has "Laptop Hunters", Linux has recession
2. Re:Blogger only - it seems by stanlyb · 2012-02-01 10:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Your Ass Has Been Redirected To Your Country Specific Jail. Be happy that you are not redirected to some China's jail.....
3. Re:Blogger only - it seems by EdIII · 2012-02-01 10:46 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Your Ass Has Been Redirected To Your Country Specific Jail. Be happy that you are not redirected to some China's jail.....
  Not to be crude, but if my Ass had to be redirected towards a jail I would rather it be a jail with a small average penis size. Literally easier to handle. Just being pragmatic...
4. Re:Blogger only - it seems by msobkow · 2012-02-01 11:14 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Google is doing the blocking so they can do business in the nations requesting the block.
  Despite American arrogance, all companies are required to abide by the laws of the customer's nation if they do business there.
  You can't blame Google for following the rules! Sorry, but that's just the FACTS OF LIFE.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
5. Re:Blogger only - it seems by Dunbal · 2012-02-01 11:15 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No, it reduces the usefulness of google as a search engine. But people don't HAVE to use google.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
6. Re:Blogger only - it seems by RocketRabbit · 2012-02-01 11:55 · Score: 2
  
  So they should take a stand and stop selling Google Adwords in China or other repressive countries.
  It would be up to the authorities to try to block Google in China, and we all know that there are many ways around the Great Firewall.
  Doesn't Google make enough money already?
7. Re:Blogger only - it seems by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-02-01 11:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You can't blame Google for following the rules!
  Sure you can. The Nuremberg defense is not a defense.
  Personally, I think the US needs an antitrust exemption for companies who want to collude strictly for the purpose of refusing to comply with, or otherwise opposing, foreign legislation that would violate the US First Amendment.
8. Re:Blogger only - it seems by marcosdumay · 2012-02-01 12:10 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Nice answer. But if they were doing that because of China, theyd have acted earlier. By the way, they already closed their Chinese subsidiary, thus Google isn't subject to China's law anymore.
  The fact that they started doing that just after SOPA and PIPA threatened to become laws just passed over your head...
  
  --
  Rethinking email
9. Re:Blogger only - it seems by jc42 · 2012-02-01 12:22 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Despite American arrogance, all companies are required to abide by the laws of the customer's nation if they do business there.
  Except, of course, in the US itself, where fines imposed on corporate "persons" for violating laws are typically much less than the corporation has earned from the violations.
  At the extreme, I've read a few studies that compared the fines for things (bad drugs, contaminated food, etc.) that killed people, and reported that the per-casualty fine was typically less than $500, often under $100. You and I would be jailed and/or executed for selling things that kill people; corporations usually just get what amounts to a slight surcharge on their taxes.
  Of course, you are free to believe whatever you like about how companies are required to follow laws. But being fined a few thousand bucks for a violation that raked in millions isn't much of an incentive to be law abiding.
  
  --
  Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
10. Re:Blogger only - it seems by fightinfilipino · 2012-02-01 12:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  as trite as it sounds, "i was just following the rules" and "i was just following orders" have often been lame excuses covering up horrible abuses against humanity. actively enabling the stifling of free speech is a horrible abuse.
  i recognize the issue is much more complex than that, but then, so should you.
11. Re:Blogger only - it seems by Grishnakh · 2012-02-01 12:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  What about US legislation that would violate the US First Amendment?
12. Re:Blogger only - it seems by Charliemopps · 2012-02-01 12:57 · 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.
13. Re:Blogger only - it seems by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-02-01 13:17 · Score: 2
  
  That's a good point. My initial thought was that it wouldn't help anything because the US law couldn't be enforced against a company that chose to violate it unilaterally, but if you think about it there are probably a lot of laws that are unconstitutional but that nobody is willing to be the first to challenge because appealing all the way to the Supreme Court is very expensive (and in the meantime getting prosecuted for a crime is generally bad PR). Letting an industry put up a united front would go a long way toward fixing that because they could contract to share risks and litigation costs, and it would also blunt any charge by foreign governments that the US is being hypocritical.
14. Re:Blogger only - it seems by ohnocitizen · 2012-02-01 15:46 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You know that putting it in caps doesn't make it true, right? It isn't arrogance to expect human rights to be respected when you do business, its ethics. So yes, we can blame google for staying in a repressive country, and following the rules. If they want to enact country specific censorship, they could block out that country's access to the site with "your country does not support basic human rights like freedom of speech."
15. Re:Blogger only - it seems by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 16:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's easy for people to just see things in black and white, but you're not one of the people actually living in countries where censoring happens. I live in China. The alternative to region censorship is that nearly All foreign blog providers, as well as Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and such are Completely blocked, and Chinese people are forced towards more heavily controlled Chinese alternatives (where people practice auto-censoring, even, to avoid getting into trouble). Google often gets blocked for short periods of time too.
  The result? Major annoyance and decrease to productivity: Chinese search engines are just not as good as Google, and there are many non-political information I'd want to access from blogs and other sites (research, tutorials, etc.). Google Docs is often blocked.
  In fact, even in countries with censoring, control over foreign websites is imperfect. For example, I can access Slashdot without a VPN, and most major forums have threads with political discussions somewhere. When a major service starts censoring, a lot of things in fact go under the radar, so it still vastly increases individual awareness. However, blocking the service and all its alternatives completely Does prevent access to a lot of information.
  Basically, because people not living in countries with censorship complain about their services blocking say... 20% of sensitive content, the whole service gets blocked off, meaning people in that country can't access the remaining 80% of politically meaningful sensitive content, and can't access the 90% of total content that is "everything else" either. If this new feature allows Google to operate all its services in China, then I welcome this move.
16. Re:Blogger only - it seems by Wandering+Idiot · 2012-02-01 17:05 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I'm as concerned with the US slipping towards totalitarianism as the next guy, but for the love of god please shut the fuck up with the stupid FEMA meme.
17. Re:Blogger only - it seems by Vijaysj · 2012-02-01 17:12 · Score: 2
  
  Makes sense since If google breaks the laws in certain countries. Then google employees in that country are subject to criminal investigation....
  
  --
  To Share Is To care
18. Re:Blogger only - it seems by RevEngr · 2012-02-01 17:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Despite American arrogance, all companies are required to abide by the laws of the customer's nation if they do business there.
  You can't blame Google for following the rules! Sorry, but that's just the FACTS OF LIFE.
  I think what you call arrogance is what a lot of people would see as idealism, or at least, being consistent with the ideals of an open internet. I, for one, don't understand why Blogger has any obligation whatsoever to any foreign government. I am probably unrealistically naive, but i still believe in an internet that transcends nationality, and I'm afraid I don't see the exchange of services or information over the Internet as the necessary equivalent of 'doing business' in any traditional sense.
  Some governments may choose to try to block access to Blogger if they don't like the content, which is sad and has undoubtedly already happened. The response of Blogger and the rest of the Internet community should be to work to restore that access. I don't pretend it's an easy problem, but this action to move to ccTLDs looks like a dangerous compromise.
  We're all very familiar around here with the history of the Internet and the important role governments have played in its development, but it just seems to be going backwards to start drawing political boundaries over this beautiful mess we've created. We have something here that can bring us to a better world than we've been able to achieve by carving up the planet into geopolitical territories; we shouldn't be selling it short to placate entrenched interests.
19. Re:Blogger only - it seems by msobkow · 2012-02-01 20:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The idealism only goes as far as lining American pockets.
  Witness SOPA, ACTA, etc.
  The fact that the media companies have the American government in it's pocket through lobbyists is irrelevant to the rest of the world. We don't care why your government is abusive; that's an internal problem for the US. What we care about is that you do not (as a government) act anywhere near the ideals you espouse on the international stage.
  And as soon as the American people wake up to the fact that the American government doesn't give a damn what they want, only what the lobbyists want, the sooner there might be change in that global perception of the US. Take back control of your OWN government before you try to tell anyone else how to run theirs.
  Take off those rose coloured glasses. You can't see shit with them on!
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
20. Re:Blogger only - it seems by Serpents · 2012-02-01 20:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The only thing I can say is: Good, maybe the people living in countries with censorship will finally move and do something about it. It has happened before, you know
21. Re:Blogger only - it seems by dnaumov · 2012-02-01 20:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The notion is ridiculous. If you have a website that's publically accessible from all over the world, then by your definition you "do business" in every single country of the world. The idea that this means you must now adhere to laws of every single country able to access the website is blantantly insane.
22. Re:Blogger only - it seems by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 00:44 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It would be better if Google just cut off those countries entirely. That would add more fuel to any impending revolution. Censoring lets the people continue to live in denial.
23. Re:Blogger only - it seems by assertation · 2012-02-02 02:09 · Score: 2
  
  "American Arrogance"
  1. A slang term used outside of North America to refer to being opposed to dictatorial governments, censorship, anti-sex attitudes, genocide or oppression of women.
24. Re:Blogger only - it seems by tehcyder · 2012-02-02 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  Are we forgetting that Google is a for profit company and not a publicly owned system with a mission to overthrow oppression?
  No, I don't think we are. Being a for profit company doesn't mean you can do whatever you like to make money, without consequences. If Google starts being evil enough, a lot of people like me will choose to stop using Google entirely. I like Google search and Gmail, but I'm not married to them.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
So much for... by grub · 2012-02-01 09:43 · 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 Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 09:47 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Well, it sounds like it might have the effect of eliminating a lot of blogs, so I'd say it has a good chance of improving the experience.
2. Re:So much for... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 09:52 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Android is open! Durrr!
3. Re:So much for... by spidercoz · 2012-02-01 09:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They're not doing evil, they're just enabling it.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
4. Re:So much for... by interval1066 · 2012-02-01 10:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think the motto should "Do no evil, unless it interferes with our business model."
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
5. Re:So much for... by CowTipperGore · 2012-02-01 10:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If you had bothered to RTFA, you would see
  
  [M]igrating users to local domains will help promote the freedom of expression while allowing the flexibility to abide by local law.
  
  Anyone can use google.com/ncr (NCR stands for “no country redirect”) to see the original page without geographical redirection.
6. Re:So much for... by Ossifer · 2012-02-01 10:10 · Score: 2
  
  So why are they following local laws, beyond those of Mountain View? Is this really how the internet should work? Either the lowest common denominator or having to follow a global patchwork of contradictory local laws?
7. Re:So much for... by GodInHell · 2012-02-01 10:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  When it includes censoring people who do not live in those countries so that the plebs who do cannot be told how much their nation sucks.
  
  Worse, this begins the process of actually fracturing the internet into sub-nets for national use. If I want to reach a global audience I'll have to make sure I don't do it in a way that will offend anyone in a country with bullshit over-pious litigators in government (looking at you Aussies) or a totalitarian regime bent on rewriting history (Hi China) or some asshole country with fucked up copyright and patent laws (hello U.S.A.).
  
  So -- you can have a global blog, so long as you only blog about how awesome consumerism and particular Chinese products are.
  
  -GiH
8. Re:So much for... by sjames · 2012-02-01 10:15 · Score: 2
  
  When you start enforcing questionable laws in countries you're not actually in. If some country wants to expend a trillion dollars making sure nobody ever sees a disparaging remark about their king, that's their business, but that doesn't mean that people in other countries should help them out.
9. Re:So much for... by maxwell+demon · 2012-02-01 10:16 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think the motto should "Do no evil, unless it interferes with our business model."
  The second part is always implied in everything a company says.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
10. Re:So much for... by elrous0 · 2012-02-01 10:17 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Blogger
  
  Or, as it's now called in North Korea, "Your Attempt To Access Imperialist Site Has Been Noted By Glorious Leader."
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
11. Re:So much for... by lee1 · 2012-02-01 10:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Google censors results in the US in response to political pressure, and lies about it. No laws involved at all.
12. Re:So much for... by Baloroth · 2012-02-01 10:28 · 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
13. Re:So much for... by tqk · 2012-02-01 10:40 · Score: 2
  
  ... at what point did *obeying the law* become *evil*!
  Invoking Godwin, in 3, 2, 1 ...
  Evil laws shouldn't be obeyed, period. Do you really trust politicians of today to not write evil laws? Sometimes, it seems like that's all they do these days. Since when was censorship not evil? Since when was freedom of speech evil?
  I hate this century.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
14. Re:So much for... by Artraze · 2012-02-01 10:44 · 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?
15. Re:So much for... by TheGratefulNet · 2012-02-01 10:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  but at what point did *obeying the law* become *evil*
  when the law is wrong, that's when!
  do I really need to invoke a godwin, here? or cite US history from the civil war era?
  confusing 'law' with ethics, much?
  and no, we don't expect google to be ethical. we stopped believing that, what, five or more years ago? it did not take long for the google shine to wear off and for us to all realize they are a self-serving company, just like all the rest.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
16. Re:So much for... by TheGratefulNet · 2012-02-01 10:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "google: not dictators but #1 *with* dictators"
  (apologies to the simpsons for ref to their '#1 with racists' joke)
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
17. Re:So much for... by serviscope_minor · 2012-02-01 10:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They're not doing evil, they're just enabling it.
  "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)
  Well, they're not doing nothing, but I think he had something in mind other than helping evil along the way.
  Also, if the metaphorical road to hell is paved with good intentions, then where do you think bad ones might lead?
  Bottom line is this action is evil since it serves no other purpose than to allow evil. That is in no way neutral.
  But this is not news. Google abandoned any pretense of sticking to their motto long ago.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
18. Re:So much for... by tqk · 2012-02-01 11:29 · Score: 2
  
  If you had bothered to RTFA, ...
  Hah. Good one.
  
  Anyone can use google.com/ncr (NCR stands for "no country redirect") to see the original page without geographical redirection.
  So, you're saying the summary doesn't really summarize? Damn! So, the summary sensationalizes the situation? Damn again. Is that allowed, or expected?
  Rhetorical.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
19. Re:So much for... by AtomicJake · 2012-02-01 11:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Google is not censoring anything. They are not stopping freedom of speech.
  They ARE redirecting blogger blogs through ccTLDs.
  Correct. But why is a user outside of the USA redirected to a ccTLD, if he asks for "blogger.com"? More and more corporations are doing this redirection and it sucks big time. I, and probably most people, know how to write "google.de"or "google.fr" - if I write google.com, I want the same page as users in the USA. And the same is true for amazon, dell, hp, blogger, twitter etc.
20. Re:So much for... by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-02-01 11:49 · Score: 2
  
  If Google has "Don't Be Evil" enshrined in their corporate charter, which I believe they do, then they must take that into consideration, even if it means lower profits. However, I think it would be difficult to objectively prove that Google is being evil (or rather that they are violating that provision of their charter).
  I think you're misunderstanding what that provision is good for. Proving that something is evil is pretty hopeless unless they're committing mass murder or something like that, which seems pretty unlikely for an internet company. But now suppose Google's board would otherwise have a "duty" (for whatever inane legalistic reason) to screw over some honest people, and they don't want to. It lets them claim that doing that would be "evil" and if you (the soulless plaintiff's attorney) want to challenge it they could demand that you prove it's not, which you can't really do any more easily than you can prove that something is.
  In other words, it gets them an out if they want to do the right thing and otherwise wouldn't be allowed to.
21. Re:So much for... by Solandri · 2012-02-01 13:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If it works like google.com, you'll be able to circumvent it by plugging in the country code for the site you really want. e.g. When I was living in Canada and wanted Canadian search results I could just go to google.com, which would redirect to google.ca. But if I wanted U.S.-centric results, I could just search on google.us.
  
  So if the blog you want to read is on blogspot.com.au, and blogspot.com for your country redirects to blogspot.com.nk which has censored the blogspot.com.au article, you can still reach it directly via blogspot.com.au.
  
  Of course if your country has blocked blogspot.com.au, then you still can't read it. But then it's your country's fault, not Google's.
  
  It's an interesting solution to the "how do I make one website which complies with all countries' laws?" conundrum. While it would be cool for a company to "stick it to the man" and thumb their noses at repressive governments, I don't think that's realistic, nor would I call it evil for a foreign company/individual to fail to stick up for my rights. Freedom has to be earned, from within. If it's given by outsiders, it's not treasured, and may be discarded by the wayside. This way, if you see a bunch of people talking about an article on blogspot.com.au and it's not showing up for you on blogspot.com.nk, and you go to blogspot.com.au and find the site blocked, at least you know that your country/ISP is censoring.
22. Re:So much for... by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-02-01 14:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Which is preferable, and who's gonna pay collateral damages in latter two cases?
  It's pretty obviously preferable that they take down the whole website. Then people notice. There is a large hole in the Internet where the site used to be, things still link to it, and people realize that and start looking for ways around the block. Then many people have sufficient incentive to take countermeasures and the censorship is thwarted.
  If you allow only the target of the censorship to be removed, maybe nobody notices, or more people conclude it isn't worth working around because they don't need to read solely the things the government has classified as unprintable. It makes the censorship more effective, because only the target of the censorship is removed and nothing more, which substantially reduces the incentive for that country's people to fight it.
  
  If the government indulges in web censoring, what makes you think it would even as much as say "sorry" to a luckless SoB who lost his site along with whole blocked hosting domain?
  When there are only a small few people who are disadvantaged, certainly. That's how they get away with it -- if the government screws over one person at a time, everybody else goes on with their lives with insufficient incentive to work together to help the one victim. If a government screws over everyone at once by taking down major websites, it's a lot more likely they'll have to answer for it.
  Obviously some countries are more resistant to public pressure than others (e.g. Iran, China), but even they are not totally immune -- and even if they don't actually change their position and remove the blocking in the short term, at least people will have more incentive to bypass it and make it ineffective. They're more likely to ultimately give up trying to block information if their attempts to do so are ineffective.
23. Re:So much for... by anonymov · 2012-02-01 15:10 · Score: 2
  
  It's pretty obviously preferable that they take down the whole website. Then people notice. There is a large hole in the Internet where the site used to be, things still link to it, and people realize that and start looking for ways around the block. Then many people have sufficient incentive to take countermeasures and the censorship is thwarted.
  Yeah, because remember how when Google pulled out of China it sparked the revolution and led to establishment of democracy in China?.. Oh, wait, didn't happen, Google just lost a part of "chinese censored web search" market to Baidu.
  The problem with removing whole site is a) government doesn't care unless people start a massive uprisal, b) only those who visited that site will know what was there. All the thoughts shared there will be lost and general public won't even know why did it get banned, was it really inciting ideas, or was it just idiotic rambling and flaming.
  The best solution would be removing page from the domain under that countries jurisdiction, but letting know people from outside that it's not available elsewhere.
  
  If a government screws over everyone at once by taking down major websites, it's a lot more likely they'll have to answer for it.
  Answer for it, as in: "Did we do that? Hmm, let us ask around. (time passes) We're still gathering information about that incident, wait some more (time passes) Erm, yup, seems like we did that. What an unfortunate mistake! That Bob or Dave or whatshisname surely won't get a bonus this holidays. I hope our sincere apologies will cover your losses for lost business days and reputation lost thanks to our IP THIEF/CHILD MOLESTER/TERRORIST DOMAIN SEIZED BY $LEA banner"
24. Re:So much for... by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-02-01 16:08 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The Ministry of Search - Googleplex in leetspeak - was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous outstretched structure of glittering steel and glass. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Corporation:
  CLOSED IS OPEN
  CENSORSHIP IS FREEDOM
  SURVEILLANCE IS PRIVACY
  
  --
  If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
25. Re:So much for... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 18:12 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  What? I can't understand you. Take Google's cock out of your mouth and try again.
26. Re:So much for... by Asic+Eng · 2012-02-02 00:31 · 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?
Along with Twitter by krslynx · 2012-02-01 09:47 · Score: 2

Looks like Google is bending over to the powers that be along with Twitter; such a shame.
Completely Misleading by RazzleFrog · 2012-02-01 09:49 · Score: 4, Informative

If you read the article Google is doing this so when a blog is censored in one country it isn't censored everywhere and you can always access the blog by appending ncr (no country recognition). This means they found away AROUND the by country censorship. Talk about spinning a story.
1. Re:Completely Misleading by rtb61 · 2012-02-01 09:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Once censorship starts it doesn't ever stop. Next up ISP blocking. You are watching the creation of the new internet piece by rotting piece.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
2. Re:Completely Misleading by Artraze · 2012-02-01 10:21 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  > Once censorship starts it doesn't ever stop.
  Sez you. Remember back when "Schweddy Balls" was pushing the limit of what was allowed on TV? Remember when McCarthyism made certain _ideas_ essentially illegal?
  Censorship is done at the behest of people or their leaders. It's something that comes and goes and people decide what should be visible or not. Sure _sometimes_ it's forced upon a society, but that's usually (and really by definition) the result of a totalitarian government. But really, isn't that the real problem?
  When a people decide they don't want guns, or drugs, or prostitution, or gambling, or certain forms of expression they pass laws against them. So you think "censorship" is stupid and wrong because it doesn't hurt anyone. Good for you. I think that most of the aforementioned laws are stupid and wrong and they hurt people more than they help. But you know what? Sometimes people get hurt by things, and they pass laws against them because they feel that the law hurts them less. Yeah, it sucks, but it's not Google's fault, nor is it their duty to change it. This censorship crap is no more "evil" and "slippery slope" than Google, say, not selling booze in Islamic countries or whatever. You don't agree, I don't agree, but if the Germans, for example, are made extremely uncomfortable by Nazi stuff, should Google tell them to piss off when asked to block it?
  That actually would be rather mean of them, I think...
3. Re: Completely Misleading by bonch · 2012-02-01 10:24 · Score: 2
  
  There is nothing in the article or in Google's support post about this being a workaround for government censorship. To the contrary, the intent is to make censorship more convenient for Google by enabling them to censor content on a per-country basis without affecting visitors from other countries. The NCR prefix will get blocked by censoring governments. The only spin here is your post.
4. Re:Completely Misleading by bonch · 2012-02-01 10:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You're citing absurd examples like selling booze in Islamic countries or banning Nazi content that makes Germans uncomfortable. Government censorship is far more sinister, silencing criticism of leaders and quieting stories of the government abuses or the punishment of political dissidents. It's also not something that "comes and goes" like a summer breeze. Overturning an all-powerful government structure is extremely difficult and often bloody. We're talking about people's lives here.
  If this wasn't Google, it might not be considered as huge an issue in relation to other companies' foreign censorship compliance, but there are two contributing factors: 1.) Google's dominant presence on the web, and 2.) Google's public embrace of concepts like openness and freedom, seemingly when it suits them. Their power and ideology give them a greater moral responsibility; that's the drawback of being #1 in a given industry.
5. Re:Completely Misleading by rtb61 · 2012-02-01 11:14 · Score: 2
  
  You are confusing stop with being stopped. A subtle difference in language but in social reality, one that is often drenched in blood. Censorship once started does not stop and always grows. Those outside the body that control censorship must use force to limit, reduce or eliminate censorship.
  Do you think the first amendment was a freeby, that those in power gave it away for free or did those that want it have to fight and die for it.
  Do you remember glasnost and the turmoil that caused. One leader at the right place and at the right time managed to sneek it in but it teetered there for a while under the threat of what could have been an enormously destructive civil war.
  Now every country will argue, if goggle can do it with the amount of traffic they generate all of you can do it for everything else. You will argue technicalities, a different protocols and they will ignore it all and say, see it can be done.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
6. Re:Completely Misleading by Artraze · 2012-02-01 11:16 · 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.
7. Re:Completely Misleading by Grishnakh · 2012-02-01 12:49 · Score: 2
  
  I'd just like to point out that there's a giant difference between banning alcohol (or other physical objects) and banning speech or other expression. I don't know what the law is in Saudi Arabia, but if you're allowed to talk about alcohol, about how much you'd like to drink it, and how you think the ban on alcohol is stupid, then that isn't censorship. It's just a ban of a physical product. That isn't remotely as bad as censorship, because at least it allows people to discuss the law, express negative opinions about the law, and if enough of them agree and convince the government, get the law changed. Censorship is bad because you're not even allowed to express a dissenting opinion without being thrown in jail and having any written (or digital) copies of your opinion destroyed so that your ideas can't spread.
  We had Prohibition in the USA back in the 30s, but it wasn't censorship. People were free to talk about the law, and eventually the law was changed (actually, it was changed remarkably fast, given that it required a second Constitutional Amendment to repeal the first one, and usually Amendments are very hard to get passed compared to other laws due to the higher requirement of consensus).
Alternative? by JanneM · 2012-02-01 09:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Anybody have a recommendation for an alternative blogging platform? Preferably one hosted in Europe by a non-US company, and one where it is reasonably easy to migrate from Blogger.

--
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
1. Re:Alternative? by JanneM · 2012-02-01 12:13 · Score: 2
  
  I looked at your blog - relax, brah. Your deep commentary about having omaraisu for dinner aren't going to get you censored, or targeted for re-education.
  It's a fair point, and no, I don't expect my blog to get noticed by anybody, much less censored.
  But I've come to realize almost all of my net prescense is based in one single country where I have no representation, no voice and no rights; and in one single company that - for all that they want to do no evil - sees me as a product, not a customer.
  This concentration of power over my online presence to entities I have no control at all over is making me increasingly uncomfortable, and I want to diversify a bit. Not that I expect anything to happen, but, well, better safe than sorry.
  So, any good online alternatives in general? There is supposed to be a good German cloud offering, I believe, though I don't remember the name; and Gitorius seems like a good code hosting service. Are there decent European alternatives to GMail, Google Calendar, Blogger, and so on?
  
  --
  Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Sinister, just like Twitter by bazmail · 2012-02-01 09:49 · Score: 3, Informative

This is a very sinister move in my opinion, as the only way we used to get to know about posts being censored in foreign countries is when they disappear from our radars in more free countries. Now the only way we'll know is by running some sort of massively networked diff program, comparing views originating in censored countries with ours.
1. Re:Sinister, just like Twitter by Aryden · 2012-02-01 09:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Or you could actually RTFA, or at the very least, Razzlefrog's post.
Redirect may be avoided? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 09:51 · Score: 5, Informative

TOA says:
>> If you would like to see a non-affected page, you can direct to google.com/ncr (NCR stands for “no country redirect”),
>> which places a short term cookie that temporarily prevents geographical redirection.
Missed the Boat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-01 09:56 · Score: 2

There was a time when we could have really broken down all international boundaries through the internet, but now that even the most supposedly-benign corporate power is signing up for this state-based content, I think I'm going to flush that dream down the toilette.
One thing I have loved for many years about the net was the access to other cultures, their art and entertainment, and their people. I've met so many friends throughout the world since the early 90's because of the web.
As a related aside - can anyone tell me if there's a way to get google to recognize you as country-agnostic? I still get localized information when I go there, even not signed on. I'd love to know if there were a way to get around that, so I get all the search results from every part of the globe....
1. Re:Missed the Boat by ALeavitt · 2012-02-01 10:54 · Score: 2
  
  As a related aside - can anyone tell me if there's a way to get google to recognize you as country-agnostic? I still get localized information when I go there, even not signed on. I'd love to know if there were a way to get around that, so I get all the search results from every part of the globe....
  Try Duck Duck Go, which is a very simple search engine along the lines of what Google used to be. They proudly proclaim the fact that they neither track you nor alter your search results based on your location or history.
  
  --
  This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
2. Re:Missed the Boat by BiggerIsBetter · 2012-02-01 11:46 · Score: 2
  
  We've had separation of Church and State for a long time. Maybe it's now time for separation of Business and State.
  
  --
  Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
I wonder what is being censored in the USA? by RocketRabbit · 2012-02-01 10:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

I wonder what Google is censoring in the USA? Could be that they have strict orders to keep whatever it is secret, so nobody will even know about it.
And before anybody jumps down my throat and vaporishly wails "Oh but that COULDN'T happen in AMERICA!" please direct your attention to this post : http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/9/30/215-section-act-patriot/ and senator Wyden's recent comments on secret interpretations of the Patriot act.
We are really down the rabbit hole here folks.
1. Re:I wonder what is being censored in the USA? by snookums · 2012-02-01 10:38 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder what Google is censoring in the USA
  To me this looks exactly like it is aimed at routing around censorship by or in the USA, and to increase global confidence in Google platforms.
  The MegaUpload affair has given the world a very swift kick in the pants. Strategy consultants are recommending that businesses not deal with any US-based service providers, nor rely on hosts using any US-controlled TLDs. Google are now telling us that, hey the FBI might make us take down your megawhatsit.blogspot.com site, but the visitors you actually care about will still see your site at megahwhatsit.blogspot.co.nz.
  
  --
  Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
There is no "backdoor," stop claiming this by bonch · 2012-02-01 10:46 · Score: 2

You falsely claimed this in another post as well. There is no backdoor here making censorship useless; NCR URLs will just get blocked by governments. Google has specifically made it more easy and convenient for them to comply with government censorship requests: The point of this move is so they can claim to be in compliance with a takedown request in one country while keeping the content up in others so they can retain advertising hits. The people in the censored country get fucked.
Re:And thus begins... by Mashiki · 2012-02-01 10:48 · Score: 2

Because we know how effective DNS blocks are. Right around as effective as trying to milk a bull.

--
Om, nomnomnom...