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.
Re:That's just business.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
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
Re:rephrase (Score:3, Insightful)
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?)
Re:rephrase (Score:4, Interesting)
Uh, yes [google.com]. That's what everyone is talking about.
Re:rephrase (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes you wonder if they would do this if they were not public.
Re:rephrase (Score:5, Informative)
well... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not ideology -- it's US law. If they do anything else, they can be sued.
Re:well... (Score:4, Informative)
1. A company can be sued by a shareholder for just about anything they do. All it takes is profits being below a prediction (or some half-assed guesstimate), and someone will point to a particular corporate action as being the alledged cause. Most (90% or so in an average year) such suits are unsuccessful. Google can still be sued for working with the PRC's laws, if profits fall (even in some other division, as that could be called a PR backlash!), or for not investing agressively enough in China, if profits fall, or for not dropping this silly internet stuff and becoming a buggy-whip manufacturer, if profits fall.
2. Google is not a majority held public company. Lawsuits would be coming from minority stock holders. Minority stock holders have a steep hurdle to prove in any suit - that is they have to prove that they don't have the ulterior motive of trying to make their minority of votes (or their non-voting influence) steer the board of directors on an extra-legal issue.
3. US law simply doesn't say what you are misquoting it as saying. The law actually requires any corporation to abide by some pretty strict standards of ethics that often go against maximizing shareholder value, as in these examples:
First,
http://www.business-ethics.com/current.htm/ [business-ethics.com]
alwys has some examples of companies that have done the right thing, (in the opinion of the editors). You can look at what they did, and decide for yourself if they were under pressure of lawsuits or not.
Then there's the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which is intended to have a positive impact on accountability, and is sometimes misconstrued to support your position. Most significantly (for this discussion), the Act imposes new responsibilities on CEOs and CFOs who could face criminal sanctions for false certification of financial reports. This was done by congress, because so FEW shareholder lawsuits against corporations were successful, and it was deemed necessary to give suing stockholders some "teeth" in a few cases of outright fraud, sufficient in itself to lead to criminal charges.
http://www.genusresources.com/site/content/public
Will go to a prety good overview of Sarbanes-Oxley, and why it DOESNT leave companies wide open to any lawsuit some shareholder attempts.
You could also read up on The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. It prohibits giving anything of value, directly or indirectly, to foreign government officials or foreign political candidates in order to obtain or retain business. It is strictly prohibited to make illegal payments to government officials of any country. Given the PRCs poor worldwide reputation on this, Google management could easily win just about any shareholder lawsuit, simply by saying bribery became a major issue.
(I give up. If I'm gonna keep biting on these legal related posts, I might as well change my sig to IANAL).
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.
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.
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:5, Interesting)
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.
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 les
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, Interesting)
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: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?
Re:That's just business.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That's just business.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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:That's just business.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:That's just business.. (Score:2, Interesting)
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: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
Re:That's just business.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Only the Westerners? (Score:5, Insightful)
conquest is a Western invention? my ass it is.
Re:That's just business.. (Score:4, Informative)
It was a lesson taught to us by the former Great Powers of Europe, and one we learned well.
Buckle up and get ready for what happens to Great Powers that become former Great Powers. Empire deconstruction isn't pretty. It is a lesson taught by the former Great Powers of Europe, and one the US will learn well.
Re:That's just business.. (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, class. One more time. There is no such thing as international law. There are international treaties, such as the UN charter...but a law a treaty does not make.
To have a law assumes that there is some governmental body to enforce that law. The UN is not a government entity. It is a forum for discussing various issues in an international setting, yet no country has surrendered it's sovreignty to the UN (although I feel that many would like to).
I don't hate the UN, I just think people should look at it for what it really is.
Re:That's just business.. (Score:3, Informative)
According to the Constitution [findlaw.com], treaties, along with the Constitution and laws created under the Constitution, "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." So while treaties are not internationally binding, treaties that the US are signatories to essentially become US law.
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: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 Chechn
Re:That's just business.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:No, it isn't (Score:2)
it's not a precedent either(not the first time they adhere to laws in foreign countries).
they just happen to have the best search engine at the time, that's why I and everyone else uses it, they'll have to keep up though somehow(google is infested with linkfarms for example).
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: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:3, Insightful)
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
Note to Google (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's just business.. (Score:2)
I would love to see this same poster's comment if this article stated MSN's search engine was being censored in China. I think we would see an entirely different and less supportive comment.
But hey, Google got the geeks before going public. I'll bet you an open proxy list Google will be c
Re:That's just business.. (Score:2)
I am sorry to break your heart, but Google is a profit making company. Have you ever seen a press release from them stating "We do no evil!"?
Re:That's just business.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
It's all about the market. (Score:5, Insightful)
Proxy server (Score:2)
rocking in the free world... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe not censor but (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Maybe not censor but (Score:2)
Re:rocking in the free world... (Score:2, Informative)
News editors are supposed to adhere to them.
For example: http://rtv.rtrlondon.co.uk/index.html [rtrlondon.co.uk]
This report has been marked as:
"TV AND WEB RESTRICTIONS~**NO ACCESS BRAZIL/ INTERNET**~"
Lots of different restrictions....
Re:rocking in the free world... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.ht
which is marked as
"TV AND WEB RESTRICTIONS~**PART NO ACCESS IRAQ**~"
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.
Do no evil? (Score:5, Informative)
And in the US too... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just China !
Re:Do no evil? (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from the whole indefinite extra-judicial detentions thing.
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
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:Like another poster said, (Score:2)
It's not just corporations: nations have got along with authoritatrian regimes: The US regularly supports unpleasant regimes against their democratic opponents: They helped the right wing nationalists in Spain overthrow the elected republican government; they overthrew the democratically elected government of Grenada (and there are lots of other examples is central america); they support the Al Saud rulers of Saudi Arabia, they've given China favoured nation status.
So if you're *genuinely* concerned, and
This is not really news (Score:5, Informative)
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:Stop making excuses! (Score:2)
Alternatives (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
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.
Re:understanable (Score:2)
Besides "deeded", the phrase "playing into the hands of" is used in an odd way. Usually this phrase is used in reference to someone who is unwittingly doing things that might aid someone else (possibly a rival/enemy). From the sounds of it, Google isn't an unwitting participant in this censorship at all, it's deliberate. "Playin
Re:understanable (Score:2)
Or maybe they just made a typo. ;)
deeded ? (Score:2)
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.
China’s Internet Regulations (Score:5, Informative)
No specific charges (Score:4, Interesting)
Google's Reply (Score:5, Informative)
"In order to create the best possible news search experience for our users, we sometimes decide not to include some sites, for a variety of reasons," says a statement issued by the company. "These sources were not included because their sites are inaccessible."
Re:Google's Reply (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google's Reply (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google's Reply (Score:2)
IMHO, the more annoying thing is Google's continual links to news sites that ar
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:No surprise - I agree (Score:3, Informative)
I'd be surprised if they didn't (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re:I'd be surprised if they didn't (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'd be surprised if they didn't (Score:2)
Just because you & I can reach it (I'm in Guangdong province/Shenzhen), doesn't mean everyone in China has similar access 24/7. Drop into a state controlled Beijing internet cafe and see if it comes up...
If you're clear, be happy and don't make it an issue that gains attention
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.
Remember the Yahoo Auctions affair? (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is broader here.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The issue is broader here.... (Score:4, Informative)
It is also important to remember that Google is a company that intends to make money. On the one hand, Google could refuse to adhere to China's censorship. In all honesty, what can Google really do about it? If Google decided to resist the censorship, then surely the Chinese government would pull the plug on its citizens' ability to access it. Complying with Chinese restrictions means that Google will still be accessible to the Chinese people - along with Google's ability to deliver ads which Google hopes will turn a profit. Compliance means that there is still a Chinese market; noncompliance means that there is a whole country from which they cannot earn revenue.
Still, "Google" is becoming a household name, as it were, and is to the point where people use it as a verb. Some examples of that are "'why don't you google for that information?" or "... we google as easily as we breathe
On the other hand, that's the beauty of choice. If Google becomes any sort of apparition whom we do not like, then there are other search engines eager to catch our interests. Likewise, some good old fashioned research (such as books, news papers, magazines, and other information available at local libraries) never hurts anyone.
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.
what a surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
Max
Does Google Censor American Searches? (Score:5, Informative)
Is this really news? Almost every country in the world censors now - there are few countries left where you can say anything you want. Welcome to the future, the way it has always been.
Eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
A point of clarification, IBM not only supplied, but also had IBM employees servicing the machines within the concentration camps.
Not just chinese news... (Score:3, Interesting)
more info here [indymedia.org]
Can't blame them but it's a pity. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Bears Defecate In Woods. Official. (Score:4, Funny)
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?
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.
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.
So, okay, let me get this straight (Score:4, Funny)
Re:censorship by obscurity (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:*shakes head* (Score:3, Insightful)