Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Businesses Google The Internet

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Does Google Censor Chinese News?

Comments Filter:
  • *shakes head* (Score:1, Interesting)

    by thegoogler ( 792786 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @04:20AM (#10316822)
    And i thought google was supposed to be the open, free source of information.. o well, i wonder how the chinese goverment could have pressured them?
  • Alternatives (Score:2, Interesting)

    by barcodez ( 580516 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @04:30AM (#10316851)
    Those wishing to take a stand this this a viable alternative to Google.

    All The Web [alltheweb.com]

    Remeber alternatives are what encourages competition and that can only be a good thing.

    Any other good search engines people can recommend?
  • No specific charges (Score:4, Interesting)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @04:36AM (#10316874) Homepage Journal
    You'd figure they could put some specific charges with dates and the precise content that wasn't available. I love the way the Slashdot summary says "read on to make your own decision" but the linked article doesn't actually contain any more detail than the summary.
  • Maybe not censor but (Score:5, Interesting)

    by forgotten_my_nick ( 802929 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @04:38AM (#10316882)
    But certainly the news portal itself seems either biased, or US news really is that bad.

    I have noticed if I search for a story I will find it, but the google portal does give a good indication of what the US is seeing.

    For example Bushes war records. You check the news/search engine all you find is about the CBS documents.

    However if you were to dig more you would find that a judge has ordered the release of the originals (ref: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6022115/).

    I've wondered if this is a new system of polluting the news on the net. As it is harder to control stories but easy to bury them.

  • by r6144 ( 544027 ) <r6k@sohCOFFEEu.com minus caffeine> on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @04:51AM (#10316923) Homepage Journal
    As a Chinese in China, this is hardly a surprise. Considering that Google news is accessible in China, while most foreign news sites such as CNN and BBC are blocked, I'd be very surprised if Google news are allowed to serve anything censored by the authority to those in China.

    Note that I don't think this is right, and the current internet censorship really sucks, neither does it work --- new sites containing western political views spring up every day and they can't censor them one by one. The recent efforts against porn sites are even more laughable, considering that it is still hard to find a news site in China that does not contain sexual content deemed inappropriate for children by most parents. Hopefully some time in the future they will admit that such efforts are useless and use the money on places that really need them (such as some poor rural areas).

  • by TheWingThing ( 686802 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @05:03AM (#10316949)
    A sample size of 1 website doesn't mean anything. By the way, is your website popular, and linked from other sites, or did you submit it to Google? In any case, unless you take a random sample of several thousand websites and test if they are listed on Google, you cannot derive a meaningful conclusion. Are there any such studies that were done with published results?
  • by syrinje ( 781614 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @05:31AM (#10317014)
    Listen up, because I gave up moderation rights on this thread to say this.

    Many of us on Slashdot use Google very frequently (almighty god, give us this day our daily byte...) to find all kinds of information including stuff that we need and use to make our livelihood. We also use google to keep up with the news. Mostly, we find what we need if it is out there on the net.

    This easy access to information on the net seems to have distorted our expectations somewhat. We expect, nay demand, that Google find everything there is to find, always, correctly, without fear or favour, without regard to consequences that might affect Google itself, without consideration for the laws of the many lands that Google serves - in short we want Google to be a completely good and benevolevent omniscient oracle. Googles 'do ot be evil" motto is partly to blame for this - especially to people unfamiliar with the context of the phrase. I don't think the motto calls on Google to commit hara-kiri to assert its fealty to freedom and the protection of all good in the universe. I do not expect Google to take on the Death Star in a battered Millenium Falcon. I do expect, and rightfully, that google will not screw me over by selling my personal information, by setting terms and conditions that take away my ability to use it in conjunction with any other service or sofware I want, by taking away my right to choose, by deliberately and maliciously determining what I see in order to increase their profit.

    Unfortunately, the same omniscient hold that Google has on the information on the net makes it easier for oppressive governments to control information. Previously, where such regimes had to track and control a million individual sources of information, they can now achieve that control by influencing Google. Since Google is subject to the laws of the countries where it operates (GASP!), it has no choice but to comply when threatened with complete blocking of its services in e.g. China or France. Remember the case of Yahoo! and neo-Nazi material? You can bet that Yahoo! will pull that information now that it is clear the first amendment will not protect them from legal process in France or Germany in respect of that material.

    So, the question is, do we give up on google altogether? Of course not - it has for better or worse, grown into an extension of our memory, we google as easily as we breathe - my three year old daughter knows that google will help her find her favorite cartoon sites! What we need is a tempering of the expectation that we have of Google. Get used to the idea - you will need it more in the days to come, Google is merely another tool you have at your disposal. It is NOT the be all and end all of all known human wisdom.

  • by metlin ( 258108 ) * on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @05:35AM (#10317025) Journal
    Both.

    The attitude of the US is sickening, with utter disregard to sovereignity of other nations, and the attitude of the rest of the world in letting the US puppet the UN into submission is sad to see.

    And those that shamelessly ass-lick everything that the US does (Britain, for one) no matter how inconsiderate it is to international laws makes it something to think about.
  • Re:rephrase (Score:4, Interesting)

    by benjj ( 302095 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @05:36AM (#10317030) Homepage
    (Do google even claim not to be evil?)

    Uh, yes [google.com]. That's what everyone is talking about.
  • Re:rephrase (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nogami_Saeko ( 466595 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @05:36AM (#10317031)
    Well, the obvious solution is that they should be MARKING what they're censoring so people know that "something" was censored, even if they can't see it. When they return results for searches, or display news stories, they should just be returning a "censored" link that goes to a page explaining why they are unable to provide the content.

    Kind of like their old policy on takedown notices.

    Journalists used to do the same thing before they sold-out to the government. For eaxmple, if they were in a war situation and the government censored pieces of their footage, they'd just broadcast black on-air so that viewers knew SOMETHING was being withheld from them by the government and they could start asking questions.

    But journalists have become the pawns and puppets of government now, and rather than holding them accountable, they're just climbing into bed with them. Makes me sick.

    N.

  • by DigitumDei ( 578031 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @05:47AM (#10317057) Homepage Journal
    Here is one place [google.com]


    on the left column: " 6) You can make money without doing evil."


    In fact the following google search [google.com] returns a hell of a lot of results. Though on closer inspection it seems that pop up ads = evil, whilst censoring results on behalf of the chinese goverment = profit.
  • by LiquidCoooled ( 634315 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @05:49AM (#10317062) Homepage Journal
    Don't like replying to self, but the link I gave isnt quite right.

    Click World1 on the left and go into any of the feeds, a lot have different restrictions.

    Another example is here (checked link this time):
    http://rtv.rtrlondon.co.uk/2004-09-22/2b32d49c.htm l [rtrlondon.co.uk]

    which is marked as
    "TV AND WEB RESTRICTIONS~**PART NO ACCESS IRAQ**~"
  • Eh? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:11AM (#10317114) Journal
    Its really a business decision - if the government of a country whos internet population is over 60 million demands that you stick a few lines of code in your software or they will block you totally, what are you gonna do? sure you're aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, but business is business and 60 million people is allot of business, its not like other companies don't do it - IBM supplied counting machines to the Nazis, Cisco supplies network equipment to the Great Firewall of China.

    Also what exactly did they proove here? it seems a bit of a bad explination, if google was providing different chinese content based on your position relative to the firewall then that would mean the firewall was doing the censoring right? "Google China" means that google has determined you are in China from your IP or the address you typed - if the news was the same on both sides then that would be dodgy because it would mean the firewall wasnt changing anything so google must be?
  • by joss ( 1346 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:38AM (#10317167) Homepage
    It also has a tendancy to provide a one-sided viewpoint of israel/palestine news, although I expect this is a result of successful lobbying rather than explicit policy.

    more info here [indymedia.org]
  • by marcello_dl ( 667940 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:40AM (#10317171) Homepage Journal
    Maybe we don't have the right to blame Google for not giving up a potentially huge market as China, ok, but think about the consequences if the Google team decided to stay unfiltered and the China government had to censor them: chinese users would become third class internet citizens and have one more reason to demand a more democratic government.
  • by anothy ( 83176 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @07:14AM (#10317239) Homepage
    no, the issue is that "evil" is a lot more complicated than most television shows tend to imply. the choice isn't between "present censored news in China" and "present uncensored news in China", it's between "present censored news in China" or "present no news in China". given the fact that no filtering is 100%, and the fact that even what's filtered is better than nothing, i'm inclined to believe that tools that increase access - even in a controlled, restricted way - are better than the absence of such access.

    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, and eventually enabled him to leave. now, doubtless this worked out better for him than for most, but these "evil" sweatshops did give him and his coworkers income that they would not otherwise have had, and many were grateful for the opportunity.
  • Re:Eh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stephanruby ( 542433 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @07:16AM (#10317247)
    IBM supplied counting machines to the Nazis

    A point of clarification, IBM not only supplied, but also had IBM employees servicing the machines within the concentration camps.

  • Re:Google's Reply (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @07:20AM (#10317256)
    BBC.com isn't blocked on all connections (or bbc.co.uk)

    You get different blocks on different isps.

    Blocked stuff on 163 is different to blocked stuff on cable, and again different to adsl.

    Try cable if you want BBC news.
    Get 163 if you want to see whats blocked.

    Different area's different blocks - the blocking seems to be done at the isp router rather than a general countrywide one.

    I haven't done much analysis for a while though, your mileage may vary.

    Mostly its the crappy geocities sites that are blocked on all networks here.

    Lawrence @ Shanghaiguide.com

    www.shanghaiguide.com
  • Re:rephrase (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @07:43AM (#10317327)
    Intrestingly enough; Rupert Murdoch, the owner of News Corp. (the parent company of all US Fox holdings), also owns several Asian media companies. Murdoch is directly responsible, among other things, for buying up the South China Morning Post and firing those journalists who dared to criticize the Chinese government. Funny that Bill O'Reilly's boss is also one of the biggest supporters of the repressive government in Beijing.

  • by Oligonicella ( 659917 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @08:29AM (#10317522)
    "After war, money is the most effective way to change another country's behaviour."

    Very good. That's exactly what Google is doing, providing a venue for the insertion of capitalism (money) and information (partial search).

    "If we say 'that's just business' we are putting a rubber stamp on China's current activities."

    Please give an alternative which would allow democratic countries to have a foot in the door if you would deny those companies who would abide by their rules (that is, be allowed in in the first place)? Assuming you preclude war, that is.
  • Transparent proxy. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by puddnhead7 ( 576696 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @08:38AM (#10317558)
    Is there any evidence at all that it's Google that's responsible for this? We use a combination of Squid in transparent proxy mode and policy routing to do something very similar at the company I work for. It seems more likely to me that the Chinese government is altering google searches in this fasion than that Google itself is.
  • by Pragmatix ( 688158 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @09:24AM (#10317845)
    Some of you people have very selective morality. You eagerly condemn Google for compromising in order to do business with China, but completely ignore the fact that half of the crap most of us buy is made in China.

    The average American does a lot more to support China's policies than Google does by filtering a few searches.

    Of course my hope is that stability and economic growth have a good chance of breaking the stranglehold of any dictatorial government. But we will have to wait and see.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @09:31AM (#10317891)
    Many here seem to think it is OK for Google to censor news stories for China since Google is a business. Well, I hate to drag out the trump card in an argument, but oh I dunno maybe 70 or so years ago if the New York Times wanted to do business by opening a news bureau in Germany, would it have been ok to censor stories about what the Nazi's were doing to Jews? because they were a business? Would it have been ok to "ostensibly" support the Nazi Regime becaue they were in power? Just to do business?


    It has come out now that many US corporations did business with the Nazi's because there was money to be made, they didn't consider the moral questions of their paricipation in one of the most monstrous regimes in human history because "there was money to be made." Well, I'm not sure what warped philosophy lets a corporation off the hook because they want to make money, but IBM making punch cards to help the Nazi's more efficiently keep track of and kill Jews. But Companies such as: BASF, Bayer, BMW, Daimler Chrysler, helping the Nazi's and in the process making money is fundamentally evil and wrong.


    Now, ask yourself this, if you lived under The Nazi regime back then would you consider those that are arms makers (to help make killing of humans more efficient) and computer makers (to make keeping track of all the dead bodies more efficient and to make the trains to the concentration camps run more efficiently) evil?


    Your deeds make you evil, and by assisting those that are evil, such as those that would censor Information and use it to abuse the populace which is what the Chinese are doing (I take it you're all familiar with the Brutality inflicted upon "Political Dissidents"), you yourself become evil.


    All Corporations that assist such iniquitous behavior should be held accountable for their deeds.

  • by Mitch Monmouth ( 316620 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @10:43AM (#10318458)
    I live in Shanghai. Google Cache and Google Groups are both blocked from anywhere in China (except oddly through China Mobile GPRS.)

    This can be quite annoying, particuliarly when a site is down or I don't want to load a .doc file. Being unable to research with Google Groups is also a problem since I work in technology.

  • Re:rephrase (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @11:48AM (#10319128)
    I only go to Exxon gas stations if I think I'm going to run out of gas

    Please explain. I was led to beleve Arco was the most politically correct gas brand (more delivered by pipeline than by supertanker so less chance for oil spils, etc).

  • by StM.Rawder ( 813111 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @11:48AM (#10319129) Homepage
    Growing up there were always two or three papers in our house, the SF Chronicle, a Swedish paper (in swedish from sweden) and a local paper. My father and I always were amazed at the news that is censored here. Sometimes he would have to actually try and corfirm the stories, as we just couldnt believe that our papers could be repressed in this fashion.

    This being said I dont think Google is at fault here, other that being a large and evil corporation but that is a different matter. I mean Google is just a search engine. But I take comfort in the fact that the censors will never win, as they have already lost, and only a better idea can beat a good idea.
  • This is nothing new (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Xepo ( 69222 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @04:17PM (#10322316) Homepage
    Here's an article dated January 2003 talking about how google decided to cooperate with the Chinese government, and why. This isn't new at all, in fact it's over a year old. Google's don't be evil policy hasn't changed, this is one decision which they decided it was less evil to cooperate.

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/google_ pr .html

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Working...