Google = Nazis

The problem is of an ideological nature, no? Anyway, it's not very surprising is it.

The company argues it can play a more useful role make a lot more money in China by participating than by boycotting it, despite the compromises involved.

o wai

There's money in them thar paedophiles

Am I misunderstanding this? Wasn't google being blocked from China before? And this was the only way they would be allowed TO MAKE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY?

Yeah, sure

t41w4n r00l5 0k!!!!!!!!!

xpost

They probably DO feel that they're making a step towards transparency by at least SAYING what has been censored. But it's a company not a civil rights group, of course their main objective is profit. And yes they want to give a Chinese users a quicker slightly more extensive service, but only ultimately to protect/enhance their own reputation and thus, oh, make more money.

somewhat censored google with information loopholes that the PRC will never be able to block fully.

or

no google.

Take your time.

Certainly a company in Mountain View CA can succeed where the Taiwanese and US Navy don't dare to tread.

There are lots of reasons for this besides strictly $$$$$ and of all people JON WILLIAMS was the first to state it the most clearly

Probably Tuomas should be the only person on Earth to be able to use Google. The rest of us will have to go back to Yahoo!

Take your time.

Surely making a fuss is the only real way we've got to get multinationals to act half-decently?

the objections here would be better levelled at international regulatory bodies or the lack thereof. Public companies are driven by shareholder profit and kept in check by whatever regulations apply to them. It's the job of governments and international institutions to allow or disallow this kind of thing. Sadly we don't have any kind of international trade zone in which only countries judged to adhere to democratic norms can participate, or we might be able to disincentivise this kind of behaviour.

The key and most interesting point about Google and other internet companies is that they're operating in a zone with very little regulatory control - and this is particularly pertinent to civil liberties. As such, they're largely being allowed to police themselves and make their own ethical decisions. In light of that, it's on one hand fairly surprising that they refused to hand over search info to the US govt; but on the other, their shareholder profit is also driven by the continued public perception of the company as reasonably benign (altho that keeps tilting the other way as they become bigger, in an inevitable cycle). The main thing is, tho, none of this is unexpected. What complainants should do is lobby governments not companies themselves.

It would be much better if ALL Falun Gong references/sites were blocked. At least people would be able to recognize that it's a controversial topic.

Really, what do people expect of Google? To boycott China on ideological basis and ban the nation from using their search engine or something? What exactly would that accomplish? Of course I agree that freedom of speech and press and everything is a good thing, and it would be great if China did it, but it's not Google's job to fight for that.

You know what's hilarious? The wingnut-o-sphere is all getting a case of the vapors over this great scandal. "Those left wing traitors in California aiding and abbetting the communists!" Back in the '04 election, the Department of Elections had a webpage set up with information for overseas Americans on voting. Then, using the most absurd logic possible, they decided to block overseas IP addresses from accessing the site for fear of terrorists taking advantage of the information. Liberals were completely incensed, but I didn't see the conservatives so much as mention the incident a single time. Censorship is in the eyes of the beholder, or something.

As I say, no-one's asking them to fight for anything, just not to be enlisted as seconds in Chinese government's corner!

xpost
Dadaismus, so not offering any form of Google to China at all is preferable?

focus on the chinese government (ask hubby) rather than google.

mei is correct but this is global business and it is simply never as cut-and-dried as hokey WW2 analogies (with hindsight in full effect, of course) suggest.

Dadaismus OTM, what difference does it make that they now have Google which gives them the same information they've had all along?

xpost
TOMBOT I totally agree, and the people working in the World Trade Center were little Eichmanns in the genocide otherwise known as kkkapitalism

The defense of Google seems to be that Beijing would censor the information anyway, so it doesn't matter if it's Google doing it or Beijing. However, that's a bit like saying, Beijing is going to buy tanks from someone no matter what we do, so why shouldn't we sell them the tanks that they'll use to crush the protesters in Tiananmen Square?

Once Google starts selling censorship services to the Chinese government, won't it be their job to try and come up with better and more effective means of censorship?

"When the censorship laws are eventually repealed" - you've got to admire optimism on this level!

well it'd be quite a boring job so no!

"hi i'm an admin temp working for google ayyyyayay go me"

Yeah Communism's gotta work somewhere big eventually, right?

Google nor Yahoo nor MSN nor AltaVista are "selling censorship services" to the fucking PRC's Ruling Party, they are complying with that country's laws. Much like UPS is not "selling tariff services" to any country you have to fill out a customs form for.

How do you all feel about 3rd-world nations refusing to accept the importation of any food made from crops grown with GM seeds?

I've been waiting for somebody to ask that question all day. I'm not really sure, personally.

So, for those reasons, I believe I'd be happy with Google.cn. So, is Google necessary doing an evil thing then? Of course, the fact that Google is aiding oppression is pretty sickening, but it's not as simple as that. That's why I'm mocking the ridiculous assertions like "Google = Nazis"

Real-Time Testing of Internet Filtering in China

Google says it itself. Forget the ethics of it, the whole original selling point of the company was that it offered the most complete and accurate results, which it won't be doing in China.

Furthermore, this little screed says a lot more negative about you than it does Google:

... of course, Americans have the right to freedom those little yellow Chinaman have no such rights - why they don't know the meaning of the word "democracy"! (nor can they search for it using our search engine)

Oh christ almighty define evil. Have you actually ever done a search on Google???

And yeah, Dan OTM of recent posts.

In what universe does it make sense that a nation's sovereign rights trumps all other rights, including human rights?

Google done a bad thing. It would have gained serious cred (which it probably could have turned into long-term commercial gain as well) if it had refused to self-censor. The more companies, institutions, nations etc. fall in line with China's political censorship, the easier it is for China to do it.

It would have also been completely unavailable to 1.3 billion human beings.

xpost
jz, that argument is stupid. The equivalent of refusing to self-censor is simply not offering its services to Chinese citizens at all, and I think most everybody in this thread agrees that that isn't preferable.

xxpost
TOMBOT, I feel kind of like I'm being a Republican here myself and I feel a little uncomfortable.

Get this -- my local pharmacy refuses to sell marijuana! Thank God for the invisible hand of capitalism. I cannot wait until a competing pharmacy starts selling those delicious nuggets, that is where my money will go.

The BBC news website can't be accessed in China. Do you think the BBC should censor its news output so it can be available to a further 1.3 billion people? If not, why not? Where are you going to draw the line?

Seriously, yet another censored search engine is probably something the Chinese can do well enough without. They've got dozens of them already.

I'm not sure any of us have enough information to make that determination. How do we know that the Chinese practice of censorship wouldn't crumble faster if Google didn't cooperate? By making censorship more palatable, aren't they making it more politically sustainable? How do we know that Google won't make it possible for the Chinese government to censor more comprehensively and effectively than it would have been able to do on its own?

i hope this page isn't banned - imagine 1.3 billion people (lol the ones who can afford computers) scratching their heads at WTF these dudes are talking about.

Not when the search engine starts editing its results.

Not in this context. The BBC shouldn't censor information for political reasons. Nor should search engines.

Ask some missionaries from various religions what their absence from the PRC has done to reform the way the communist party thinks.

you would LOVE europe.

haha i'm confused now. are you saying the pharmacy is bad because they censored marijuana, siding with the EVIL government laws? or are you saying they're awesome because they didn't help EVIL marijuana sellers?!?!?!?!?

1. Google refuses to censor search results.
2. Chinese government blocks google.com from coming into the country.
3. Chinese citizens can no longer load google.com without going through numerous hassles that the average person isn't tech savvy enough for.
4. Chinese government's censorship, in a shocking twist, remains firm rather than fastly crumbling.
5. World population shocked!
6. Google sends army into China to bring freedom and democracy.
7. Google remembers that they actually don't own an army and are just a search engine.
8. Chinese censorship remains firm. Still no signs of crumbling.
9. Begin again at step 1.

crosspost

Can you please explain how one-eighth to one-forth the shit you can find on Google isn't evil in some way? You completely misunderstood my point vis a vis this stupid "Google says do no evil" mantra.

Not to mention that while I agree with their not turning over search records on IPs, there are plenty of people in the world who would consider that evil when you're talking about certain types of cases (esp wrt pedophilia or violent criminals). So...

Define evil. Or is our evil better than the Chinese's evil? I don't agree with any kind of evil but I find this Google as anti-evil stance to be precious at best.

In what universe does it make sense that a nation's sovereign rights trumps all other rights, including human rights?

Did you even think before you wrote that?

Seriously show of hands who the fuck has sat down to think about this?

but, but they have sand volleyball courts!

I would question whether respecting another government's "right" to censor the information made available to its citizens falls under the values of "multiculturalism" and "equality". Where do we draw the line at respecting cultural sensitivities and aiding and abetting repression?

Fucking overprivileged idiots being too busy dancing the "I-am-your-imperial-lord-and-master-obey-my-decrees" rhumba to make coherent arguments or even basic sense.

Also, anyone who feels that the Chinese people are going to be hoodwinked into thinking they are getting full internet content is really being a bit paternalistic, no? I'm thinking that when citizen X looks up, say, Amnesty International and gets "no results, please try again" they'll be able to put the pieces together without our help.

(Predicted multi-xpost as I am on dial-up, and can't be bothered to care)

Sure. Do you really think it's impossible to criticise a company for recognising a nation's sovereign rights? Do you rate national sovereign rights as some kind of absolute?

OTM seriously. this thread reminds me of the wingnutosphere.

FREEDOMPUNDIT has a special report on oppression in Uzbekisten! Believes the Uzbeki people should rise against the government.

UPDATE: MICHELLE MALKIN concurs.

UPDATE: DEMOCRACYPUNDIT agrees: "This isn't good, people."

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FREEDOM, BLOGOSPHERE: 1. OPPRESSION: 0.

i dunno about the united states but in london you just go to brixton or camden for your dope.

Who's posturing now?

Look at it this way: when gay American couples come to Canada to get married, what is happening? Is Canada standing up for equality and human rights, or aiding and abetting American citizens into doing something that is illegal in their country?

Only to see who made such an inappropriate kneejerk analogy.

xpost Canada is doing neither, Canada is following their OWN laws. It IS legal to get married in Canada regardless of your citizenship status, you know. Same with most western countries actually.

This is a valid question. Personally, I don't think you can even pretend to pay lip service to "multiculturalism" if you are also going to turn around and say "but oh by the way there are a certain subset of MY values that you have to follow". Furthermore, turning GOOGLE into the vanguard of progessive change in China, considering that they are, you know, a business which by definition needs to be interested in making sure that their actions turn profits, strikes me as being incredibly, unforgivably stupid.

Who is doing this? Where?

i just did a google news search and guess what came up?> XINHUANET the CHINESE COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA ORGAN!

can we any longer doubt that google is nothing more but an ally of the COMMUNISTS against FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY?

xpost
I kind of can't believe that people are equating/comparing USING A SEARCH ENGINE with GAY MARRIAGE.
-- Dan (Too Many Privileges) Perry ([email protected])

this seriously made me roffle. using a search engine = gay marriage = genocide

I'm not equating the actual issues, I'm not saying "disallowing gay marriage is a form of censorship" -- the point is that countries where gay marriage is banned would find Canada's laws reprehensible, whereas in this case, countries that frown on censorship are finding China's laws reprehensible. Who cares though, they're China's laws and Google is operating withing that legal framework. China isn't going to soften it's stance on censorship or any human rights because of anything Google does or doesn't do. I'm agreeing with you, ffs.

2: do not question it -- they are a company, of course they're going to do whatever makes a profit

1: yeah but I don't like it

2: you are stupid

well...yahoo turned over information that helped put a dissident in jail. i know their defense is, "we have to comply with local laws," which is true if you choose to do business there. but i think you have to recognize that by choosing to do business there, especially if you're in the information and data bizness like yahoo and google, you're going to end up complicit with the regime, probably more than you intend or realize going in.

i don't think this is as clear-cut as either saying "google's being evil" or "google has no choice." of course google has a choice. they could take the entirely defensible position that they're not going to comply with the laws of authoritarian regimes, and structure their business accordingly. that in itself could have some negative consequences in limiting people's access to information (just as economic sanctions can end up hurting the people they're supposed to help). it's pretty complicated, and i don't think there's a clear moral path. a lot of this is the old "constructive engagement" debate -- by economically engaging with a repressive government, do you help spur inevitable reform through economic growth, or do you reinforce the regime? what if it actually does both at the same time?

i guess what i'd like to see from google is a little more explicit recognition of the compromises they're making. and maybe the establishment by them and other companies doing business in china of some kind of international nonprofit organization for the promotion of freedom of speech.

lol singapore would be a very poor choice for your non-censorshipping needs.

1. a company has done something i don't like. the situation is reminiscent of millions of people being brutally slaughtered in one of the most repulsive episodes of human history.

2. you are stupid

1. rofl u r rite

RJG: That pretty much sums it up for me. I kind of don't see any point to getting upset over this particular issue because our right to free speech does not extend to China and I do not believe that our corporations have the right to impose our values on their citizens, much like I don't believe that their corporations have the right to impose their values on our citizens.

The comment that the real issue here is the failure/lack of an internationally-ratified set of cultural standards regarding free speech and information access rings truer to me than anything else and I'm not even 100% sure I fully agree with that (mostly because I haven't thought about it that hard).

Yeah, that Dan Perry guy is definitely weakening

You mean, imposing the right to make money regardless of moral issues?

so it's fine if they censor their site and host in china, but take out all the ads????? ? ?? ? ? ??

I know that!! *slaps head* NO ONE IS GETTING ANYTHING I SAY TODAY!!

Eh? Where???!?!?

Ohhh Teeeeee Emmmmmm! Contrary to what liberal westerners think the Chinese are not retarded and I bet Google, being a technology company and that's all I will say, knows this. Are they the, uh, "Fucking Angel Gabriel"? No but again, as has been stated about 73 times already on this thread NO GOOGLE AT ALL

xpost No, Steve, they're not.

Not that this 'excuses' the situation, regardless of how true it is. It doesn't really undermine criticism of Google or China re the principle.

1. THIS IS HORRIBLE
2. ACTUALLY SOME GOOGLE IS BETTER THAN NO GOOGLE BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN GET AROUND THE CENSORSHIP AND GET BETTER INFO NOW, HOPEFULLY
3. NO THIS IS HORRIBLE, CORPORATIONS SHOULD TAKE A STAND AGAINST COMMUNIST TOTALITARIAN REGIMES
4. SEE POINT 2
5. NO I DISAGREE AND FIND IT IRRELEVANT
6. INSERT DAN PERRY DECLARING WORLD STUPID
7. REPEAT

PLEASE explain to me how that fact is irrelevant to THIS DEBATE?? No one is debating with you that censorship is bad for fuck's sake.

xpost Steve please just read my post twice.

OTM.

No, they're not. Next question.

OF COURSE we should engage with China. But selectively. As we already do. ie U.S companies can't sell them arms and other sensitive technology. And in my view information companies shouldn't fold to Chinese censorship, shouldn't shop dissidents etc.

It'll be interesting to see what this is and whether Google goes along with the guidelines.

and i don't think there's anything wrong or imperialistic about advocating for freedom of speech in china, or anywhere. i'm guessing there are some millions of chinese who would like to advocate for it themselves, if only it didn't entail prison.

No one has said anything remotely like this.

i don't know if they're VERY DIFFERENT. they tend to be complementary. restrictions on one amount to restrictions on the other. i think "free speech" is generically understood to mean both freedom of expression and freedom of reception of information.

As it happens I've worked for anti-censorship charities and I believe that Google being in China is a good thing despite the restrictions imposed. Chinese culture really does not like getting its dirty laundry out for Joe Gwailo to gawp at - which is half the reason the papers are full of 'orchestrated' news. If the Chinese want something done in their country, they'll refer to it obliquely, and in the media that means liberal coverage of other countries' industrial accidents, government corruption, mafia, or censorship. People in countries emerging from totalitarian rule are used to exercising their freedoms under the table, and will arrive at parity sooner rather than later because of normal social forces.

The real worry for us is whether the internet will become more like China's, for people OUTSIDE China.

Since when?

The real worry for us is whether the internet will become more like China's, for people OUTSIDE China.

DING DING DING DING DING DING DING

M@tt He1geson's Thread of Self-Promotion (my band has a website now) (11 new answers, 57 total)

I'm curious, would someone mind expanding on this? An example of where you have one w/o the other?

folks should:
-put news text on images with lots of noise
-only return regime friendly text to spiders like GoogleBot so their indices think you're a goody goody.
-what about flash plugins?
-what about AJAX and dictionary substitution algorithms (looks like normal text, but isn't)?
-embed today's news as noise in an mp3 or image file. subtract a clean copy from the noisy version and you get the news you need.

i'd much rather google be in the loop than the chinese just writing their own google and being done. a hole is a hole.
m.

I think google blocks access to kiddie porn sites!

i think all http content is proxied from china anyway that way they can comb for stuff they don't like.

The firewall part of the system is known outside mainland China as the Great Firewall of China (in reference both to its role as a network firewall and to the ancient Great Wall of China). The system blocks content by preventing IP addresses from being routed through and consists of standard firewall and proxy servers at the Internet gateways. The system also selectively engages in DNS poisoning when particular sites are requested. The government does not appear to be systematically examining Internet content, as this appears to be technically impractical.

msp, from what I have heard there are word of mouth networks setting people up with https/ssl/ssh tunnels to proxies run in "the free world"

/aside

I think that the following are inalienable human rights:

- food
- clothing
- shelter
- health care

advocating for human rights in china doesn't mean saying, "you should be more like america" (although frankly at the moment that would be a big improvement).

How "have your cake and eat it, too" of you!

crosspost

I liked the strawmanning contest with RJG; that was fun.

Chinese Government: This debate is asinine

No!

DING DING DING!

OMG WTF corporation deciding to make money by following laws but poss also make changes in the later game holy shit.

Is this really beyond a couple of you? And by a couple of you I mostly mean a handful of people who don't actually have log in names and who I've never seen before who are reaming Dan for some reason. And RJG, today, only.

i don't know about "inalienable" -- that gets into an absolutist argument that is as much semantics as anything -- but i think they're important human rights, and worth protecting and fighting for.

>>advocating for human rights in china doesn't mean saying, "you should be more like america" (although frankly at the moment that would be a big improvement).

How "have your cake and eat it, too" of you!

haha, is it controversial to think the u.s. system of constitutional government is preferable to the chinese one-party-rule authoritarian model? how ethnocentric of me!

Reading comprehension is so difficult. YA RLY.

xpost Dan I don't know what you are going on about with this imperialism you're right to a point but now you are pushing it way too far to make a point.

because he's an asshole?

The point I tried to make is that the allegedly culture-neutral point being advanced is anything but culture-neutral; it is heavily informed by the values inherent in our (very similar) cultures and there are many explicit/implicit "my culture is better, let me make your decisions for you" arguments being put forward by the "liberal" side of this debate. People then decided to be really fucking stupid so I decided to just sarcastically parrot back the ridiculous taken-to-the-extreme positions that were being ascribed to me because there's really no hope of actual debate at this point because no one (including me, I'm guessing) is willing to take the extra step of looking at their position from a point of criticism in order to identify its weakenesses or danger spots. I recognize that there are a lot of privileges that I have as an American that are not present in China. I am completely, totally, deliriously happy to have those privileges. I do not think that the fact that I am in America and all of the Chinese people in China are in China (wow what a fucking retarded clause, but anyway) means that the people of China should never, ever have access to the same privileges that I enjoy. This isn't stopping people on this thread from doing their best to call me a facist without actually invoking the word, so, you know, fuck it. I'm going to do nothing but insult people and poke hornets nests because no one (including me) likes getting called on their bullshit.

but it does get into how comfortable you are espousing "universal" values. i basically think some things should be universal, self-determination among them, and it's hard to have political self-determination without free speech. so i don't have any problem, myself, saying that i would prefer governments, corporations and individuals to work toward greater freedom of expression. google can make a case that what they're doing in china will actually lead to more freedom down the road, and i think that's possible. i also think it's possible and maybe likely that along the way, google is likely to complicit in some violations of those freedoms. that they'll be making money while doing that is not very morally appealing, and is at least worth acknowledging even if you conclude that it's worth the trade-off in the long run.

This week, we are all singling out Google for doing something Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL have all already done.

I smell a rat.

I think it's meaningless to talk about values outside of the context of culture. The aim here should be the creation and nuturing of a subset culture that everyone can or should ascribe to; the danger is that, since we're ostensibly the ones in the position to set the parameters of this culture, we are also in a position of cultural power and have to watch out for pronouncements that blanket-condemn other cultures or exclude them from the get-go because their value system is so opposed to ours.

There is also the question of what precisely gives us the right to tell another culture that they are wrong; of course we are going to think they are wrong because we grew up with a set of values that are opposed to the values shown to us by various media sources and our own personal travels, but what makes our position the "correct" one? It has to be something beyond "we have the money" or "we have the power" or "because we said so", doesn't it? I mean, you could argue "because it hurts fewer people" but then you start running into the situations I alluded to upthread; which culture is better, the one where everyone gets food, housing, clothes and medical care but information is restricted and you can't criticize the government or the one where everyone gets to say whatever they want and learn whatever they want as they starve to death? My obvious reaction is that neither of those is particularly desirable but what is the "best" one? How do you determine what factors cause the least amount of negative impact on people?

I don't think anyone on this thread (including myself) is in a position to talk sensibly on the subject (at least not based on what I've read today).

January 25th: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm

Call it a conspiracy theory if you will. I am truly astounded more people aren't commenting on this.

well, a major argument for universal human rights is that societies that allow for basic human rights also tend to be better at providing all the other things you're talking about. the countries with the highest standard of living are also representative democracies of one kind or another. and sure, there's a lot of variation even among the industrialized democracies, but on pretty much any scale you want to use, you're on average better off living in those countries than anywhere else. which doesn't mean that everyone in china or vietnam or iran would rather be in poughkeepsie, obviously. but probably a lot of people in those places would like to be able to live in china or vietnam or iran and have basic legal and economic protections from the state.

i mean, ok, we as americans or westerners arguably don't have the right to force democracy on anyone else, but by the same token, do the ruling elite in any of these countries have the right to force authoritarian rule on their populations? like i said, i'm not sure authoritarianism is exactly a cultural value. which is not to say that everyone who lives in those countries would rather have a democracy. hell, there was some recent survey or russians that showed that 37 percent of them thought stalin had done a good job -- about the same as george w.'s current approval rating. but knowing that some percentage of people in any given population might prefer authoritarianism just makes me think it's that much more important for those of us who don't want authoritarianism (which at least seems to be everyone on this thread) to advocate for the alternatives.

and xpost: i was happy google stood up to the bush administration. i also think it makes sense as a business decision, just like their moves in china. they're protecting the integrity of their product.

I trust Google to provide better, albeit still censored, services to the Chinese than their other search engines. If what you said is true, that proves me right. So, isn't it better that the Chinese would get that than not get that?

well done

U.S. technology has been used to block, censor Net for years

The guy's point is that American companies have been selling web-filtering technology to more-or-less repressive regimes for years, and that it's hypocritical to single out Google and Yahoo for their dealings with China. For instance a California-based company called Fortinet apparently sells web-blocking technology to Myanmar.

FUCK FUCKING SHIT

http://googlereader.blogspot.com/2013/03/powering-down-google-reader.html

YOU MOTHERFUCKERS. YOU ASSHOLES.

Your google reader blogs

really annoyed of google subbing words in for my searches. i searched for a headline that had the word "rape" in it, and it showed me results with "sex" instead of "rape." wtf

in the results, the word "sex" was bolded as if i had searched for it. i realize this isn't a new thing but srsly wtf i know what im searching for! its hard to apply old googling skills under this new regime

I'm testing DuckDuckGo, so far it's quite cool!

it's not personalized, kinda feels like the old web - in a good way

(using the firefox add-on)