Google Using Chinese Site It Owns To Develop Search Term Blacklist For Censored Search Engine, Says Report (theverge.com)

Google is using search samples from a Beijing-based website it owns to make blacklists for the censored search engine it is developing for China. Google's website 265.com redirects to China's dominant search engine, Baidu, by default, "but Google can apparently see the queries that users are typing in," reports The Verge. From the report: Google engineers are reportedly sampling those search queries in order to develop a list of thousands of blocked websites it should hide on its upcoming search engine in China. Blacklisted results, which include topics like the Tiananmen Square massacre, will result in users seeing a blank page, The Intercept reports. On Baidu, if you search for something less specific, like Taiwan or Xinjiang, you'll get a partial blackout where you can only see tourist information and not politically sensitive news reports. It could be possible that Google is taking a similar tack.

Originally, 265.com was founded in 2003 by Chinese entrepreneur Cai Wensheng, who's also the founder of Chinese beauty app Meitu. Google bought the site in 2008, while it was still operating its search engine within China. Google has essentially been using the site to figure out what Chinese users are searching for since 2008, and now that it is working on an Android search app, it will finally have a use for that data. The Intercept first reported this news.

Comments

Re:So no more

[Kiuas]

Google doesn't give a shit about freedom of speech. They (via Youtube) were part of the coordinated, multi-platform purge of Alex Jones.

Freedom of speech is about preventing censorship by the government (meaning: the stuff that China for example is doing), it's does not mean that private corporations cannot choose which content they allow on their platforms. In other words: no-one is limiting Alex Jones' freedom of speech by blocking them from their platforms as his nonsensical bullshit is deemed damaging to their brand(s). That's the free market at work for you. Arguing otherwise is like saying that if I write a column on how the moon landings were all faked by the lizard-illuminati-freemasons and newspapers refuse to publish said column because it's unscientific conspiratorial BS my freedom of speech is being limited, which is a moronic argument.

So once again, repeat after me: private entities are not required by law in any western country to allow anyone to use their platform to spread their opinions.

How this can be so hard for some people to understand is beyond me.

They also refuse to work with the US government but happily work for the Chinese government.

If you have evidence that Google has refused to follow the laws of the US, I'd be interested to see that. What I've gathered as a European following the events in the recent years, it seemed pretty clear to me that all the major tech companies were involved with the security apparatus of the US, based on the information leaked by Snowden, and I also do not remember seeing cases where Google wouldn't provide the authorities with required information when they're legally required to do so, so frankly I have no idea what you're referring to here, but then again neither do you probably, as you're not even aware of the definition of free speech.