Does Google Censor Chinese News? 547
mOoZik writes "A story carried by New Scientist suggests that Google might be playing into the hands of the Chinese government by blocking certain news stories which may be deeded inappropriate. Some users recently reported that Google's Chinese news search returned different results depending when they searched using a computer based outside of China. The claims were substantiated by researchers who connected to computers inside the country. Read on and decide for yourself."
That's just business.. (Score:5, Insightful)
law. So what's the problem with adhering to Chinese law if you set up office in China?
Now you might not like the political stance of the Chinese government but that's your business after all it's their country and their jurisdiction. If you don't want to adhere to their laws don't set-up office there.
The principle motive of any company is to maximise its profits. If Google thinks working in China will enhance their profitability and they don't mind the draconian laws then it makes sense for them to enter that market.
We should not expect companies to make political statements - we have politicians for that - Companies are driven by different forces than politics and in the highly competitive market of internet search taking such a stance could damage the company immensely.
Simon.
It's all about the market. (Score:5, Insightful)
rocking in the free world... (Score:5, Insightful)
Like another poster said, (Score:3, Insightful)
The real question is why people expect a different standard of behaviour from Google than from other companies. I mean, you guys don't really believe that "don't be evil" stuff, do you? Google is Just Another Company.
Re:That's just business.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Google is *THE COMPANY* (Score:1, Insightful)
They have a direct tap into the consciousness of the (online) world. What we are worried about, what we are interested in, and they know as soon as these things change.
With that comes immense power, and opportunity for extreme evil.
Mark my words: One day we'll come to hate Google the way we (well, most of us) hate Microsoft...
No, it isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the precedent that is important here. When you ignore this, you erode the fundamental freedoms that form the basis of the Internet.
Woe... (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, in this case it is quite clearly the Chinese government that is responsible for this. If Google doesn't comply, their service will be blocked from China such as they have done in ths past. If by "playing into the hands of the Chinese Government" you mean that they follow the rules of that country (just like they do in the U.S.), then I suppose they are. But by that argument, Google is clearly playing into the hands of the U.S. Government too.
Re:That's just business.. (Score:2, Insightful)
How about Google remove all ads from its service? That would be very un-evil no?
How about Google give its technology and source code up for grabs free to Yahoo! and Microsoft?
understanable (Score:5, Insightful)
if google don't take out those site, then it will in turn hurt google.
I am not saying it is a good thing, I personally don't agree on internet censoring, but that's how china work, it is something that won't change in a short while.
rephrase (Score:3, Insightful)
you somehow seem to think idealism is achievable in such an environment
you should be condemning the chinese govt, not google
Not the first time (Score:5, Insightful)
When Google started out, they seemed to be a refreshing alternative to other larger corporate sites. Google is now becoming part of corporate America. With that, we can expect to see a more "tame" Google geared toward minimizing the making of waves for the purpose of maintaining investor confidence and ensuring a steady profit.
Is it "selling out"? Perhaps, but I think that this is the sort of thing that we can expect as a company expands and grows.
Re:rephrase (Score:3, Insightful)
And in the US too... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just China !
No surprise - I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone not aware enough to find other sources from time to time, deserves the narrowness they assume, whether it concerns Asia or Europe or NA.
Take responsibility for your own interpretation...after all, we were taught in school how American newspapers bury or bias 'news' by placing some on the front or back pages, while other stories get jammed against an inside margin. To repeat...don't be surprised when your 'news' is crafted by the source(s) you use.
Re:That's just business.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Their motto has always been, "Don't be stupid, unless you have to".
They're a company, and they have no obligation to the people of China to fight for their freedom of speech.
When world nations don't care a damn, you expect a corporation that makes search engines to?
Their playing it safe, which is exactly anyone would do in their position. If anyone should be helping the people of China, it is the people themselves and the rest of the democractic world governments.
Judging by the current UN meetings, we seem more interested in waging wars against nations for our own vested interests - how can you expect a corporation to not protect it's interests when the bastions of democracy act thus?
Some google is better than no google (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I feel that it's better for the chinese people to get some access to google, rather than none at all. The Chinese government would not hesitate to completely remove access to google.com. This would greatly trouble a great many number of chinese people.
Some (censored) google is better than no google.
Not a Surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree with the first poster that it is not a surprise that they adhere to Chinese laws when feeding content to a Chinese audience.
In fact, I think it would be odd if they don't. There is simply no point in jeopardizing their business this way.
This reminds me of the whole Kazaa Lite censorship stuff, where they took a rather conservative route in obeying the law. But I think their stance in the legal area should save them lots of trouble dealing with the implications.
Re:Google's Reply (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the Yahoo Auctions affair? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do no evil? (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from the whole indefinite extra-judicial detentions thing.
Re:rephrase (Score:5, Insightful)
Lokk at it this way - no technological method for filtering out "undesirable" sites and news, etc, is going to be 100% efficient or effective. At least with google serving the Chinese market, there will be "windows of opportunity" for people to find stuff that their government deems unsuitable. With the web continuing to grow, these opportunities will become more frequent and longer-lasting, as google/the Chinese authorities play whack-a-mole, a game that's impossible to win...
As others have said, at the end of the day, google is just a company, and this isn't really their fight. Change has to come from within, not be imposed from outside. Besides, for all anyone knows, there could be an unofficial, internal google policy to not be as quick at complying with takedown requests as they could be, or to introduce subtle inefficiencies and bugs into the process/software. Let's see how this plays out for a while before calling people evil. (Do google even claim not to be evil?)
Note to Google (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Google's Reply (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm... regional Google? (Score:4, Insightful)
It just seems like a touchy subject, and I think a lot of people like to jump up and down assuming other places/countries are peopled by others like ourselves.
Re:Do no evil? (Score:3, Insightful)
All the top countries are in
In any case, presumably you'd be the first to applaud Germany if they allowed complete freedom to spout Nazi propaganda, anti-semitism, racism, eastward imperialism, anti-Catholic screeds, state-sponsored prostitution, white supremacy and all the other rabid nonsense that happened before? Never mind that Europe suffered dreadfully as a result and would be horrified if Germany allowed such 'freedom'...
Re:No, it isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Your ethics and the ethics of the Chinese are not the same. Just because you think its good that news is not filtered it does not automagically follow that this is the correct way for every society to organize itself.
It is precisely this sort of "we know best for everyone" thinking that starts wars. Your country is your business, and other peoples countries are their businesses respectively.
If you dont like the way the Chinese organize themselvs, dont spend your money on goods made there. That is your choice, and your very great power, but dont expect people to adopt your morality, standards, ethics or anything else for that matter, because what they do is not your affair. There are enough problems in the world without more international meddling from "one size fits all" people who think they know whats good for everyone.
Google by adapting to Chinese society are in fact being absolutely "not evil". They are showing true respect for Chinese society and sensitivities, which is precisely the way that all humans should interact with each other.
Finally, there is no such thing as "the fundamental freedoms that are the basis of the internet". The basis of the internet are a set of protocols and nothing more. How the Chinese and for that matter the Saudis see the internet is just as valid as how you see it. IMHO that is its true beauty.
Re:That's just business.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a lesson taught to us by the former Great Powers of Europe, and one we learned well.
Max
what a surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
Max
Re:That's just business.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Censorship, China, and others. (Score:4, Insightful)
So consider the case of underage pornography (something that the US government does censor). Should Google not censor it?
All governments that I know of do *some* censorship -- the question is just to what degree.
I mean, I think that the people running China are a bunch of shortsighted assholes, but they aren't qualitatively different from other governments -- just, perhaps, quantitatively. Given that we listen to US media, we hear a lot about how awful China is doing.
On the other hand, the US Iraq occupational authority did not allow freedom of press, and in fact shut down a number of media sources for criticizing them (newspapers and the only Arab-language news network). Naturally *that* didn't get much air time -- but godless communist oppressors censoring critical media is acceptable and *required* content for us to hear about.
Re:rephrase (Score:3, Insightful)
We know that previously the Great Firewall of China was used to block Google entirely. Then the ban was lifted, presumably on certain conditions. I would posit that the conditions were something like:
1. You tweak the search results to exclude certain material
2. You doh't make this agreement public.
Given that is it more of less Evil for Google to censor its feed or have it blocked entirely. I'm not sure myself.
Re:That's just business.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, it isn't (Score:4, Insightful)
Then they should change the slogan to "we obey local governments and make money".
The Chinese people or government may have different values (that can be wrong). But the same company cannot believe that censorship is wrong in Denmark and OK in China.
(this is all hypothetical, I don't know what Google is doing).
Re:No, it isn't (Score:4, Insightful)
In case that didn't convince you, here's a hot naked woman's breast. Agree with me.
http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL487/1395129/3442
Re:That's just business.. (Score:1, Insightful)
GROW UP!!!!
Contrary to popular belief (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, i like unbiased uncensored news as much as the next person, but its obvious that google feels they can make money otherwise, so is it really so shocking?
Re:That's just business.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:rephrase (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes you wonder if they would do this if they were not public.
Re:That's just business.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me ask you this: if China gets uninhibited access to the benefits of 'free' markets, including the participation of western companies, what incentive do they have to reform their human rights abuses?
Another question: Based on your arguments, do you therefore boycott any US company that does business in China? After all, it's up to you to make a difference.
After war, money is the most effective way to change another country's behaviour. In fact, I believe you could argue that it's more effective than war, because it tends to produce less resentment and society-wide anger. If we say 'that's just business' we are putting a rubber stamp on China's current activities.
Re:No, it isn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's just business.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I know a guy who used to work in one of the south-american sweatshops making clothes or shoes (i don't remember) everyone gets so upset about. he and his wife were no fans of the people who hounded nike and friends to stop such practices; in their view, such practices were the only thing which gave him any income.
--
Well good for him, but that hardly justifies the conditions sweatshop workers are forced endure so that Nike and friends can continue to make obscene amounts of cash. Sensible people who oppose sweatshops realise they give people chances they would not otherwise have had. We're campaigning to make Nike and friends stop abusing people (seem reasonable?), not to close them down or move all operations elswhere.
Re:No, it isn't (Score:2, Insightful)
> think its good that news is not filtered it does not automagically follow that
> this is the correct way for every society to organize itself.
>
> It is precisely this sort of "we know best for everyone" thinking that starts
> wars. Your country is your business, and other peoples countries are their
> businesses respectively.
Oh, I get it - there's no right and wrong, and that's why it was immoral of Germans to hide Jews in the 1930's and 40's. After all, they were breaking the law. And the ANC, weren't they terrorists? I mean, the lives of white people were more important than the need of blacks there to emancipate themselves from the system of apartheid, so in killing people the ANC were evil, and anyone contributing to the ANC was aiding and abetting a criminal act, right?
> That is your choice, and your very great power, but dont expect people to adopt
> your morality, standards, ethics or anything else for that matter, because what
> they do is not your affair.
What IS his affair is bringing to other people's attention the fact that he believes Google is going back on it's "Don't be evil" commitment, and they they might too.
Re:*shakes head* (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt at all (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder how much google supresses certain news stories that the US fed deems innappropriate?
I doubt at all. I mean, every day there's headlines about this or that bad news from Iraq, or "news" like "Kerry said blah blah ...". Not to mention "reputable" exposes from CBS.
I know it's popular for today's youngsters to pose as though they are living in an oppresive dictatorship, but it's bunk, and really insulting to those who actually do.
Homeland security (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the Government? (Score:5, Insightful)
And that Google's policy is Don't be evil, unless you have to...
But no one is bitching about the Chinese Government... What's up with that? It's the Chinese Government making these policies, and if google wants in, then they must comply. Simple.
If the United States Government required Google to filter out all READ: EVIL CONTENT, then the same folks would be up in arms over the US Gov't, and not google.
I guess out of sight out of mind eh? Or maybe it's just expected from Communists? I can't say why... More of an observation, but I do find it interesting that people are reacting harder on Google then the Government.
Re:Can't blame them but it's a pity. (Score:4, Insightful)
Accomodating the PRC's censorship regime doesn't do one bit of good for the Chinese in the long run--isolating China and letting the PRC be replaced by its people was the correct path, but it wasn't very good for corporate bottom lines, so they're a "Most Favored Nation" while they censor what their people can read, torture Christains, and oppress the Falun Gong.
Re:rephrase (Score:4, Insightful)
For a second there I thought you meant the incident of the National Guard shooting down Vietnam War protesters.
Re:rephrase (Score:5, Insightful)
You could have stopped there. They don't have to do business with China. I don't buy Nike shoes, I only go to Exxon gas stations if I think I'm going to run out of gas, etc. However, its difficult working with computers and electronics and not have dealings with China. Afterall, they provide the best slave labor in the world right now.
Google does the right thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I don't agree to some laws in the USA, because they don't match my morale, it does not give me any right to ignore them. Likewise it is for google in China.
It is simple to understand the issue by this reversed question: Should china ignore some laws in USA, if they do not agree with their morale/ideas?
Google does the right thing.
Censorship works in China (Score:4, Insightful)
What bothered me more was a conversation I was recently having with an American friend of mine (I'm Canadian) over a beer. He said that 9/11 was the first time that the U.S. had been the subject of an unprovoked attack on its own soil since the British attacked the U.S. in the war of 1812. I was sitting in stunned silence after he said that. I know for a fact that the U.S. burned Toronto (then called York) to the ground before the British attacked Washington. How could that be considered unprovoked? So, given that we're both products of our respective country's state funded education system, it gave me a queasy feeling to say the least.
Re:rephrase (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the problem. They "want to do business" first and foremost. That's what spammers say, too - they just want to make a buck. But it matters howHow you do business and with whom you do it - that's where capitalism stops being morally neutral. If you trade with a corrupt government knowing that it is corrupt, you are willingly assisting them, no two ways about it. It's like selling a gun to a convicted murderer, because you "want to do business" with him.
Remarkable restraint (Score:5, Insightful)
The attitude of the US is sickening, with utter disregard to sovereignity of other nations
I assume you are refering to the sovereignty of Afghanistan and Iraq. By harboring UBL after 9/11 the Taliban was complicit in an act of war. Perhaps you think the U.S. should have entered into peace talks with Mullah Omar? As for Iraq, Saddam's regime murdered 400,000+ of his fellow citizens, violated the sovereignty of neighbors Iran and Kuwait, renegged on a surrender agreement, defied UN resolutions for 12 years, and bought off security counsel members though the "oil for food" racket. I think the U.S. has shown remarkable restraint.
Re:rephrase (Score:2, Insightful)
So although their definition of doing no evil may not represent our individual impression of what it should be, they are at least consistent with their published definition. Our criticism of their slogan should not come from what their position on complying with chinese restrictions, but from their definition of doing no evil as represented in their code of conduct [google.com]. I don't think they have breached their code of conduct as it is stated there (of course I didn't read it in detail, but from quickly peeking at it, it involves more fiscal responsibility and protection of privacy than freedom of speech related topics).
Re:No, it isn't (Score:1, Insightful)
Living in a country (Poland) which used to be governed by communists, I can't express how glad I am that president Reagan did not share your opinions.
Re:rephrase (Score:5, Insightful)
Google enables the chinese government to keep censoring media, and that means Google approves of it. Bad Google! For this is most certainly an evil alliance.
What if a rope manufacturer wanted to do business in the 1950's southern USA, but the lynch mobs in the south would only buy rope that was pre-tied into a noose? Is it alright to accept their demands just to do business with them?
Re:rephrase (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure where you have been, but it's been a while since the profits of corporations surpassed near everything else in importance.
Re:Censorship, China, and others. (Score:2, Insightful)
Regards,
Steve
Only the Westerners? (Score:5, Insightful)
conquest is a Western invention? my ass it is.
Re:No, it isn't (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Remarkable restraint (Score:3, Insightful)
Restraint? Why do you say that? Why is it our job to police everyone else? Or, more accurately, why is it our job to selectively police Iraq and ignore other hotspots such as Sudan and Chechnya?
Re:Remarkable restraint (Score:2, Insightful)
Those would all appear to be really good reasons. So why did Bush focus on fictional Weapons of Mass Destruction and totally improbable links between Saddam and Bin Laddan?
Why are the majority of Americans seemingly so happy that the President outright lied to them? Clinton lied about getting a blowjob and the entire world grinds to a halt, but Bush lies about a war were hundreds of service men and women have died and there is barely a peep.
well... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not ideology -- it's US law. If they do anything else, they can be sued.
Re:Censorship, China, and others. (Score:1, Insightful)
FYI, the Nazis did the very same thing in occupied territory, for the exact same reasons you list. No radios where allowed, and torture and death were the prize to be paid if caught with contraband. Given the current propaganda regarding WWII, should we deem this criminal, while legitimizing the US's act of censorship?
Now whether or not you think the US is really fighting for the Iraqi's freedom or not is a different debate, but I do know that the US Soldiers, in particular the Marines, are over there fighting and dying fully believing that is why.
Now this is an ancient method of getting wars accepted by the people, who in the end are the ones who will bear the pain and sacrifice in the wake of the rulers agenda: "OK, you might not support or like the war, but can you at least support our troops?" In the end, you are unable to argue with such logic, because doing so will burden your conscience and your empathic relations with soldiers, who after all, as you poignantly illustrate, are fighting and dying under inhuman conditions.
So regardless of Bush's intentions, the guys really doing the fighting really want the Iraqi's to be free and are trying their hardest.
I've been a soldier myself, and I can truly attest to the fact that soldiers in general don't give a damn about the motives for the war, they just want to get the job done and get back home faster then you can say "C130!". Of course, the odd sycophant will stand on the flag of the conquered and claim just victory for the assailants, but those guys are the first to be driven off on a stretcher.
I believe Al Jourgensen said it best when he screamed:
They get you ready to fight
The fuse is ready to blow
You shoot to kill on sight
They call you G I joe
You never wanted to stop
The smell of burning flesh
The hero marches alone
Across the highway of death
It's not a matter of rights
It's just a matter of war
Don't have a reason to fight
They never had one before
You're just a killing machine
He's come to take you down
We take the gas that we need
And pump the blood on the ground
They're gonna set you up
So they can take you down
They're gonna suck you dry
They've left the blood to be found
They're gonna rip you apart
You're gonna burn at the stake
Cos when it's time to collect
It's only heroes who pay