Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

300 comments

I only hope (4, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30749864)

Google's expat employees are now out of China.

Re:I only hope (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30749900)

I only hope those damn stupid chinks walk out of this a little smarter than they walked in.

Re:I only hope (3, Funny)

rvw (755107) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750070)

Google's expat employees are now out of China.

Yeah I think the Chinese government will now cease all property that belongs to Google, send all employees to work camps, and then will start a full scale war on the US. I mean, what do they have to loose? When Google is gone, China will collapse anyway, so they might as well go with a good blast.

Re:I only hope (4, Informative)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750228)

Yeah I think the Chinese government will now cease all property that belongs to Google, send all employees to work camps......

You mean like Stern Hu, the Australian executive for Rio Tinto, who has been held by the Chinese since July 5, 2009?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=aq9DMlCuW45M [bloomberg.com]

Re:I only hope (4, Funny)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750282)

Aw man... why did you have to go ruining the guy's witty sarcasm with that reality shit?

Re:I only hope (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750702)

Oh come on now - Let's not have any of that reality crap here. Any time someone says something bad about China we are supposed to remind everyone how it is really the US that is bad. For example, you would say "China may have imprisoned an Australian guy, but look at the US: They don't give black people chicken McNuggets!" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504125,00.html

Re:I only hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750756)

....look at the US: They don't give black people chicken McNuggets!" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504125,00.html [foxnews.com]

You're saying only black folks eat Chicken McNuggets????? THAT"S RACIST!!!!

Re:I only hope (1, Offtopic)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750960)

They don't give black people chicken McNuggets!" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504125,00.html

If I paid for my meal and they tell me they ran out of whatever it is that I ordered, and they won’t refund my money? yeah, I’d be a little pissed too.

I mean, sure, I might order something else and not worry about it, but if I only wanted what I ordered and not whatever else is available, they damn well better give me my money back.

“All sales are final” means no refunds or exchanges, but if they didn’t fulfill their end of the transaction then the sale hasn’t been finalized yet. And what’s with suggesting that they could give her a McDouble instead... wouldn’t that be an exchange?

Re:I only hope (5, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750434)

I think the Chinese government will now cease all property that belongs to Google

Will they need a seize and desist order?

what do they have to loose?

Nothing, it's clearly a tight situation.

Re:I only hope (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750456)

"seize". "full-scale". "lose".

They've managed for over 4000 years. I think they'll manage without Google for a little while longer.

Re:I only hope (1)

nashv (1479253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750490)

I think you mean 'sieze'.

Re:I only hope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750656)

Or maybe even seize.

Re:I only hope (1)

hughperkins (705005) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750554)

> cease all property
> what do they have to loose?

If only spelling checkers were context-sensitive :-P

Re: SpellCheck II (2, Funny)

conureman (748753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750900)

Is any one working on this? With all the excess capacity in the hardware, a software upgrade is overdue. Seems like a viable product to me.

Re:I only hope (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750106)

I don't speak Chinese, but it seems not to be censored. For instance, the last line on this results page [google.cn] says (putting it through Google Translate) "According to local laws, regulations and policies, some search results are not shown".

(The query is for Tienanmen Square, I think, which I used Wikipedia to "translate". The google.com.hk [google.com.hk] results for the same query are very different).

Re:I only hope (1)

Raynor (925006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750146)

The idea is that previously had you searched for TS on google.cn you would not have found any results related to the protests. The image supplied shows that a very famous and previously censored image does now show up on the .cn version of google. As mentioned page rank will still rank those pages very low, however, they are no longer censored.

I Don't Think Censorship's Been Lifted (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30749872)

It's probably taken a while to report because of Google's ranking system.

I don't understand how this explains it. The searches shown have very low results for the offensive images? I don't think Google would be foolish enough to remove values from their page ranking system or fiddle with those numbers. Rather it would seem much more intuitive to build an interface that filters designated problem links and images. It's probably even automated for some bullshit arm of the Chinese government (who the devil is it these days? The Ministry of Culture?) that can go into a web portal and just add images and domains and pages to a list of restrictions. Maybe even the government is savvy enough to have an feed or service that gives this information out to companies to assure compliance and ease of compliance? A simpler answer is that a few new sites popped up and the government just hasn't added them to the no-no list yet. If you look at the URLs in the images, they are from blogspot.com which means they're probably new blogs that need to be individually blocked by the Chinese government and/or Google. What you're probably seeing is lazy censorship or the latency of an adequate solution for censorship -- which is pretty much as defective by design as it gets. I don't think "lifts" censorship is what's going on here or else Google would be looking at losing business to one sixths of the world's population. While Google professes 'do no evil' they still have shareholders to satisfy.

Re:I Don't Think Censorship's Been Lifted (2, Funny)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30749942)

What /. needs to do is start censoring big walls of text.

Re:I Don't Think Censorship's Been Lifted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750046)

What /. needs to do is start censoring big walls of text.

You think that's a big wall of text?! Have you ever seen a book?

Re:I Don't Think Censorship's Been Lifted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750078)

What?! On the internet!?

Re:I Don't Think Censorship's Been Lifted (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750152)

Not with paragraphs that long.

Re:I Don't Think Censorship's Been Lifted (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750158)

(Well, okay, maybe with paragraphs that long. But this isn't a book)

Re:I Don't Think Censorship's Been Lifted (1)

cmiller173 (641510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750772)

Not without pictures.

FTFY

Re:I Don't Think Censorship's Been Lifted (0)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750458)

Books have these things called “paragraphs”.

Re:I Don't Think Censorship's Been Lifted (1)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750294)

What makes the most sense to you? That Google announces that they lifted censorship while purposely keeping censorship on and just sliding an image or two in hoping the whole thing blows over before anyone notices or that like they say, that it takes a little bit for the ranking system to normalize

I know for a fact I've searched google.cn for Tienanmen square before and there was nothing about the massacre on the first page, and definitely no pictures of tanks, and now there is so I'm likely to believe them at present.

FTFA (2, Informative)

gyepi (891047) | more than 4 years ago | (#30749874)

"Status @ 22:30 NZT, 17:30 Beijing time, 13-01-10: Despite reports to the contrary Google.cn is still censored."

No cherry picking (4, Informative)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750734)

"Current Status @ 23:30 NZT, 18:30 Beijing time, 13-01-10: Heaps of reports of uncensored stuff. My post below may not be accurate. The images below show massive differences between google.cn results and google.com.hk results. The difference may be just a residual effect of the censorship - because Google ranks stuff based on links, previously censored materials may still be poorly ranked, even though they're no longer censored."

NSFW?? (1, Insightful)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#30749914)

Just a warning that the language on that blog post is NSFW but it does provide evidence.

So, do you by any chance work in a church?

Amen brother (1)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750002)

Oh yeah....Slastdot.org is a family site now, consisting of clean Ethical Apple Christian Hackers.

on troll dev/null

Re:Amen brother (0, Offtopic)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750172)

I hate to break it to you, but there is a large (albeit a minority) evangelical contingent here on Slashdot. We don't troll, and we try to stay away from controversy as much as possible, but we are here in the midst of you. If anyone can be saved by our good witness, then our participation in this site's conversation is a good thing.

I'm looking forward to a day when China throws off its totalitarian shackles and embraces freedom. Unfortunately, as Solzhenitsyn frequently wrote and Hayek wrote in The Road to Serfdom, there can be no freedom within such a political system.

Re:Amen brother (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750782)

Oooh, scary! A minority evangelical contingent! They're gonna pray us to death!

Re:Amen brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750394)

Oh yeah....Slastdot.org is a family site now, consisting of clean Ethical Apple Christian Hackers.

Shut your fucking pie hole before I bitch slap you like the little biatch you are!

Re:NSFW?? (2, Insightful)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750692)

To me, NSFW really only applies to something that would be visible and noticeable to someone walking past. “NSFW language” can’t really exist unless perhaps the typeface is so large that it’s easily readable to others. It’s not like I expect anyone to be reading over my shoulder, or not without me knowing it anyway.

Falun Gong (4, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30749934)

There's still search differences though

http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=falun+gong [google.cn]

is quite different to

http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-CN&q=falun+gong [google.com]

Though either does a lot better than Yahoo!

http://search.cn.yahoo.com/s?p=falun+gong&v=web&pid=ysearch [yahoo.com]

Re:Falun Gong (5, Insightful)

Bwerf (106435) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750082)

Well, http://www.google.se/search?hl=zh-CN&q=falun+gong [google.se] returns yet another different result, at least when it comes to number of hits, so it might just be google trying to optimise for different regions.

Re:Falun Gong (1)

Albanach (527650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750230)

No, the available content is different:

Google USA
http://www.google.com/search?q=falun+gong+site%3Afalundafa.org [google.com]

Google China
http://www.google.cn/search?q=falun+gong+site%3Afalundafa.org [google.cn]

Google Sweden
http://www.google.se/search?q=falun+gong+site%3Afalundafa.org [google.se]

Google USA and Sweden do report different results, but at least they actually have results!

Re:Falun Gong (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750374)

I think the differences are because of the choice of language (e.g. promoting Swedish results on .se). I was comparing .com.hk and .co.uk, but when I added &hl=zh-CN to the .co.uk URL I got exactly the same results as given by .com.hk.

Re:Falun Gong (4, Interesting)

Albanach (527650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750166)

Yahoo is especially interesting here. If you search for something innocuous like Hong Kong

http://search.cn.yahoo.com/search?p=Hong%20Kong [yahoo.com]

It works fine.

Change the search

http://search.cn.yahoo.com/search?p=Falun%20Gong [yahoo.com]

And yahoo.cn drops the connection, and seems to do so based on your IP for a few minutes thereafter.

Re:Falun Gong (5, Informative)

lobsterturd (620980) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750424)

That's how the Great Firewall tells you that something is "inappropriate." search.cn.yahoo.com is located in China, and the GFW is applied to all Internet traffic passing in/out of China, not just consumer machines, so it's not Yahoo that's blocking that particular term but the government.

This will work with any Mainland Chinese site, for example: http://www.mps.gov.cn/Falun%20Gong [mps.gov.cn]

Re:Falun Gong (1, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750262)

Thank god Yahoo is such a joke because their search results are particularly nasty. Not only do they not show results if you search for Falun Gong, but it will block you from doing ANY other searches (for a while) if you even try. Yahoo would be dangerous if they were a stronger company that anyone gave a shit about.

Re:Falun Gong (1)

anethema (99553) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750416)

Definitely not lifted yet. Here is the more famous example:

http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&resnum=0&q=tiananmen%20square

vs.

http://images.google.ca/images?hl=en&source=hp&q=tiananmen%20square

Re:Falun Gong (2, Interesting)

PhilHibbs (4537) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750584)

I think the page rank algorithm favours pages linked within the country of the search server. If not many .cn sites link to www.falundafa.org, then that site will have a low page rank on google.cn.

Re:Falun Gong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750924)

Why someone would search for Falun Gong? Politics suck! I prefer to search for http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=chinese+girls+gang+bang. That is what we chinese are looking for: some good PORN! Leave the pathetic fag politics for the western whiteys. Porn rules! I just want my freedom to jack off in peace, that is all! Let the Americans lose their time with all this election and democracy bull shit.

Megacorps (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 4 years ago | (#30749960)

I always wanted to own a Megacorporation, like Shin-Ra. You know, a big business that has its own army and basically can control the government by military force.

Re:Megacorps (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750026)

> You know, a big business that has its own army and basically can control the
> government by military force.

There is a word for that. It is called a "government". The owner is usually referred to as "Dear Leader", "President for Life", or similar.

Re:Megacorps (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750828)

A government is geographically limited. A big business can set up wherever it wants and, if sufficiently powerful, have its rules supersede the local laws. In many places in the world, corporations are more overtly powerful than governments.

Re:Megacorps (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750186)

You mean like the Mexican drug cartel?

Re:Megacorps (2, Insightful)

dintech (998802) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750312)

Who needs military to control the government when you've got cash?

Re:Megacorps (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750698)

Cash is a tool of the government and becomes worthless once the government says it is.

Real power and property on the other hand doesn't disappear at the whims of a government.

Screw national interests (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30749986)

When something is on the internet, there should be no possibility of withdraw.
DNS is the first thing that needs securing. I know DNSSEC gives authenticated proof of non-existence. That's a start, because DNS whitewashing is the low hanging fruit of internet censorship.

The internet community needs the technical infrastructure to steamroller Chinese censorship, Southern states on an anti-gambling warpath, Conservative Australian ... Peter Mandelson

Porn Providors Rejoice (1)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30749988)

If this is true. Google will now be able to provide porn to the Chineese market (though can individuals get arrested in China for viewing it or were only the cites censored?).

Germany still censored (5, Interesting)

Affenkopf (949241) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750016)

Meanwhile German Google is still censored (no youporn and a few other porn sites, no neo nazi sites).

I wish our government would do something to piss Google off so that we could have uncensored search results (to be fair: In Germany we can just switch from the censored google.de to the uncensored google.com)

Re:Germany still censored (4, Informative)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750242)

"In Germany we can just switch from the censored google.de to the uncensored google.com"

But you may need to add /ncr to the google url to avoid automatic country redirection depending on your location.

http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=873 [google.com]

Re:Germany still censored (4, Funny)

MSBob (307239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750264)

Youporn banned in Germany? How come?

Re:Germany still censored (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750432)

Youporn banned in Germany? How come?

It isn't banned.

Re:Germany still censored (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750722)

Whoosh

Re:Germany still censored (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750806)

It is. Youtube.com does not appear in search results of Google.de because it's on a "search engine" censorship list.

Re:Germany still censored (2, Informative)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750630)

Censorship in Germany and many other European countries is done under the guise of "protecting the children" ("Jugendschutz").

Germany hasn't really learned from it's past and is heavily promoting censorship as a solution to all issues. For example, it is illegal to deny that the holocaust happened.

Re:Germany still censored (1)

aquabat (724032) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750812)

Wish I had a funny mod point for you, Bob. That made my morning. :D

Re:Germany still censored (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750876)

Hardcore porn without a working age-verification.

Re:Germany still censored (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750880)

Youporn is not exactly banned. It is just not legal in Germany. The problem is that their age verification consist out of clicking: "Yes I'm definitely and without a doubt older than 18 and not 12 and just lie to watch hardcore porn" once. That's not sufficient to comply with German law.

Re:Germany still censored (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750946)

In certain german jurisdictions, (perhaps all of them, by now) verifiable proof of age is required.

Re:Germany still censored (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750498)

Out of curiosity, are you more interested in the porn or the neo-nazi websites ?

Re:Germany still censored (3, Insightful)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750796)

Censorship attempts to remove the ability to decide for yourself. Presumably he's interested in that ability and not the specific material.

Re:Germany still censored (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750746)

The censorship of neo nazi search I feel is an understandable cultural issue for Germany. It might even be a choice that Google made without government involvement. The fact that you can get around it so simply makes me think it is more of a statment of intent than evil censorship.
Just for arguments sake would it be evil for a search engine to self censor?
Just why would it be wrong for a search engine to decide to offer a "clean" search product that didn't have porn, neo nazi, and klan sites?
Wouldn't it just be offering a service you could use or not use?
To me I don't see an issue with it.

Good for you, Google (4, Funny)

Orleron (835910) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750064)

The Chinese need to learn that we will not do business with them until they clean up their human rights issues, implement better protection of IP, and stop being the dishonorable cheaters that they are.

Re:Good for you, Google (3, Interesting)

Infernal Device (865066) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750338)

This is a mere trifle to the Chinese government. Real change will have to come from within China - when enough of them want a change in their government and way of life, they'll fight for it. Otherwise, there's really not much anyone can do that will improve things measurably.

Re:Good for you, Google (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750548)

Real change will have to come from within China - when enough of them want a change in their government and way of life,

...they'll be slaughtered en masse as an example to the others.

Re:Good for you, Google (1)

Infernal Device (865066) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750710)

Didn't say it would be pleasant or fun. They might not even win.

But eventually, they might.

Re:Good for you, Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750634)

Long memories, longer perspectives. Did the West think there would be not payback for the unequal treaties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_Treaties#List_of_Alleged_Unequal_Treaties [wikipedia.org] . At this rate their full response should have been completed in just 200 years.

NSFW? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750086)

OK, I'm ignorant: NSFW is what, "not suitable for women?"

Re:NSFW? (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750122)

Not Safe For Work

Re:NSFW? (2, Funny)

owlnation (858981) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750226)

No need to explain the term. He's probably away from his computer, being perp-walked to HR as I type.

Re:NSFW? (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750292)

Even though I as a rule don't visit anything that would be deemed NSFW while at work, just the fear of something accidentally popping up and earning me that perp walk has convinced me to face my screen away from the door of my office. If someone walks in they have to walk around the desk before they can see what's up on the screen.

Re:NSFW? (2, Insightful)

ElSupreme (1217088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750454)

Funny it is Slashdot 'accidently popping up' for hour on end that has convinced me to face my screen away from the opening of my cubicle.

Re:NSFW? (1)

nkh (750837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750514)

If someone walks in they have to walk around the desk before they can see what's up on the screen.

Nope, I still can see what's on your screen, it's blurry though, look behind you, do you see me?

Re:NSFW? (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750286)

To expand on this NSFW is used to mark anything that could get you fired reprimanded or flat out arrested
(anything that would be a career limiting move) significant nudity language above network primetime and medium or higher violence would be the highlights

Re:NSFW? (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750180)

Well, I know that from now on, that is what I will be reading it as.

A Business Decision? (5, Insightful)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750130)

I think it's more likely that there were other business considerations that had already made Google feel like it was difficult to do business with China, and the censorship lift is just PR gravy.

Re:A Business Decision? (5, Insightful)

Z8 (1602647) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750348)

News: Google enters China, censors results
Slashdot: This proves Google is an evil multinational company just after money!

News: Google uncensors results, leaves China.
Slashdot: Yet more evidence Google will do anything for money!

Re:A Business Decision? (4, Informative)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750872)

Uh, they already said there were business considerations. Specifically, their systems, along with those of quite a few other large companies, were hacked in order to gain information about Chinese dissidents.

Re:A Business Decision? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750892)

I'm not sure if it was in the linked TFA, because I didn't read it, but in the story I read this morning it was in response to a hacking attempt from within China aimed at getting at information about who had been searching for censored subjects.

Uncensored Tianenmen Square Images (1)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750168)

I appreciate the warning over language, though it didn't look worse than other sites /. links to from my brief look. But there are (albeit thumbnailed) images of the Tiananmen Square massacre, which are probably more important to warn people about.

Also, the article has evidence that censorship has not ceased so YMMV with this story.

Images definitely still censored (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750278)

Re:Images definitely still censored (2, Interesting)

Majin Bubu (455010) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750402)

Re:Images definitely still censored (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750858)

Google doesn't seem to think so - it asks "Did you mean: tiananmen square".

At least, I assume that's what the chinese is saying.

Are you suggesting that Google is wrong?! Unthinkable!

Re:Images definitely still censored (2, Interesting)

blee37 (1181835) | more than 4 years ago | (#30751012)

According to CNN, Tiananmen is the proper spelling and Tienanmen is a misspelling that is not properly censored due to technical errors. Apparently those errors have not been fixed since 2006. http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/30/technology/browser0130/index.htm [cnn.com] Thanks for the link though. Impressive number of tank man pictures. I hope Google does provide uncensored search, even if for just a few hours.

Re:Images definitely still censored (1)

mrphoton (1349555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750708)

Although I you are searching for English words in a Chinese search engine. I wonder what happens when you search for "tiananmen square tank" in google.com but _using Chinese characters_

Google siding w/"human rights activists" or not? (1)

phorwich (909601) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750308)

Is it just me or is there a "spin disconnect" with this news stroy. I hear and read from multiple sources that "Google" is "pulling out of China" because of cyber attacks. My guess is most will read such stuff and concluded that google is either removing censorship or leaving .cn because it can't protect itself from hacking. Reading google's post on the topic here http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html [blogspot.com] seems to suggest that google is modifying its policies or leaving because "Chinese human rights activists" were primary targets. Google doesn't go so far as to say they are siding with "Chinese human rights activists," but it does seem to be implied. So which is it? Is google championing "Chinese human rights activists" If so, why doesn't google focus, or redirect, the media coverage accordingly?

Re:Google siding w/"human rights activists" or not (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750914)

More to the point, it's a good PR move drawing attention towards 'evil China initiating cyber attacks against Google to find human rights activists' and away from 'evil Google keeps enough information about your searching habits that an attacker could use them to identify human rights activists.'

It's just a question of time ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30750310)

China was here before Google, and will be here long after

Baidu's search results were also affected (1)

spacehunt (6406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750400)

The funny thing is, for a short while today Baidu's search results also became less censored. Feel free to draw your own conclusions on what this means ;)

Do No Evil (4, Insightful)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750436)

Google gets a fair amount of /. bashing just because it's grown as large as it has and sometimes they may even deserve it, but here we have an example of Google doing a good thing. You don't see many megacorporations taking a stand against internet censorship. Even if Google profits from this in some way and it isn't entirely a selfless act it's nice to see them doing something that benefits us little people too.

I give them credit for not being evil (4, Insightful)

Agent0013 (828350) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750592)

I remember back when Google first decided to offer censored search in China they were questioned as to whether they were in keeping with their motto of not being evil. Some said that by cooperating with China at all they are participating in the evil being done. Others thought that it was better to offer some search to the people rather than none. People can still make use of a good quality search, and some illicit material will still be available since no filter is 100%.

Now they could just keep cooperating with the Chinese government to stay in business there. Most companies would probably do that rather than stand up for themselves and fight back. It helps themselves as much as it is a good thing to stand for.

They probably have many non-altruistic reasons for doing what they are doing. But I bet the thought of their image, or brand, and how it would look depending on what they do had an impact on what they decided. So by having the motto of "Don't be Evil", they actually become less evil. And if doing good things helps their image, and helps to make them money, then so-be-it. At least good things are being done rather than more of the status-quo of mostly evil.

Hurray Google!

No they haven't! (1)

Builder (103701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750612)

Just compare
the cn version [google.cn] with the one that the rest of the world [google.co.uk] sees

Re:No they haven't! (5, Informative)

resfilter (960880) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750896)

although the results are still slightly fitered, you are searching incorrectly.

the chinese people refer to the tiananmen square protest as the june fourth incident [google.cn] .

Google Just Can't Win (5, Insightful)

vampire_baozi (1270720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750622)

No matter what it does, we are too distrustful of large MNCs to ever assume they are capable of actually making a principled stand that would run contrary to business interests. The Google narrative of the situation is fairly clear: one of the costs of doing business in China was to kowtow to government censorship demands (complying with Chinese law, as they comply with American law in America and German law in Germany). They felt it was wrong (or not) but claimed the greater evil would be to NOT enter the search market, leaving it to be dominated by companies who would have no qualms about censorship whatsoever (see Yahoo handing over IP addresses).
They later discovered they had no leverage; the good they could do by being able to provide search results that were clearly marked as "censored" was outweighed by the harm that could be done by leaked information, and they were unable to do anything (within the bounds of Chinese law) to prevent it. Thus, they reevaluated, and are considering exiting the market.

The alternative is that it is simply a business strategy switch: they discovered the market is unprofitable, and are exiting or some shit.

The problem with this is simple: even if we concede that Chinese consumers don't click or buy anything through Google ads, rendering their business model moot, Google needs the market share. The Chinese will not always be poor. There are huge number of middle class Chinese in cities with enough disposable income to make purchases. The revenue streams will grow over the years. If they cede the market to Baidu, by the time the Chinese are rich enough to afford to buy products online through ads, Google will have to enter the market as a new player with no market share to start. Not being a business analyst for google, I do not know exactly how many clicks they need to remain profitable in China. But given the huge numbers of urban Chinese with money to spare, and the impressive rate of growth, it will only be a matter of time before (urban) China catches up to Taiwan and Korea (and eventually Japan). When that happens, it will be a much more profitable market than the US and Europe.

While I'm inclined to distrust MNCs, it is possible that they really are trying to make a stand. Did anyone know/leak this before it was announced, making them fear a Yahoo-style shitstorm? Otherwise, it would have made more sense to keep it quiet, simply say there was an attack, and leave the targets of the attack unannounced, and then continue business as usual. But no matter what it does, it will be accused of simply following the money. But hey, props to google for trying, in my book.

Tank Man On first page (1)

KalgarThrax (984520) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750666)

Of the search results from google.cn. That's a big deal, folks. Let's see how this plays out....

Still censored, but don't care (5, Interesting)

euyis (1521257) | more than 4 years ago | (#30750740)

I am Chinese and have been using the Google.com (/ncr) for years. Never touched that .cn shit, and actually we call it "the eunuch Google".
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...