Beta
×

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!

Google.cn Still Remains In China

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the now-wait-a-minute dept.

Censorship 103

hackingbear writes "Google appears to be content to remain in China doing business as usual while it finds a way to work within the system, according to one of the search giant's founders. This despite a strong statement 30 days ago that it would stop censoring search results in China and possibly pull its business out of that country. And the company is still unwilling to confirm or deny if the alleged attacks were carried out by the Chinese government. 'I don't actually think the question of whether [the attacks were performed by] the Chinese government is that important,' Brin said. (That's the difference between state-sponsor vs. individual hacking. Why is that not important?) In the mean time, shortly after we celebrated google.cn lifting censorship, the exact same censorship has been quietly re-enabled as proved by this Chinese search query on June 4, despite the lack of any concrete actions by the Chinese government, which has so far made only useless general and standard statements on the matter."

cancel ×

103 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

That didn't take long. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31134944)

And here we thought Google had a strong backbone to stand up to china. Apparently not.

Re:That didn't take long. (5, Funny)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135036)

Who really thought that?

Of course they aren't going to pull out. People here are like the 18 year old girls who seriously trust that their boyfriend is going to pull out just before instead of cumming in.

Re:That didn't take long. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135420)

Who really thought that?

Of course they aren't going to pull out. People here are like the 18 year old girls who seriously trust that their boyfriend is going to pull out just before instead of cumming in.

Hey, now, we're nerds here and cannot stand for that kind of language ... unless you somehow work in a car example, maybe?

Re:That didn't take long. (3, Funny)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135454)

Maybe this place is full of 18 year old girls. I'm seeing a load of feminine ads on Slashdot these days. Now either they think there are girls here or perhaps there are tracking cookies on my machine that don't really represent why I search for breasts and pussy.

Re:That didn't take long. (1)

D H NG (779318) | more than 4 years ago | (#31139612)

Yeah, those iPad ads are confusing to a lot of people.

Pad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31138226)

I've seen many stories about feminine hygiene products here lately, maybe the demographics are changing!

Re:That didn't take long. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31140742)

Who really thought that?

Of course they aren't going to pull out. People here are like the 18 year old girls who seriously trust that their boyfriend is going to pull out just before instead of cumming in.

Actually, I figured Google would pull out and cum all over China's face, just because they could.

This would have raised their stock elsewhere in the world. Although a donkey punch would have been their best bet!

Re:That didn't take long. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135154)

And here we thought Google had a strong backbone to stand up to china. Apparently not.

You're surprised? Did you REALLY believe that "do no evil" bullshit from a company whose founders bought themselves a private jumbo jet?

And Google is not just ANY company: they're a FUCKING AD AGENCY! They make their money by SELLING ADS. "Do no evil" from an AD AGENCY?!?!?!

Re:That didn't take long. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135596)

Google has never purchased a jumbo jet, and neither have it's founders.

That's beside the point, however - Google.cn is a valuable insight into the goings-on inside China. Recently, Google started working with the NSA [washingtonpost.com] on matters of this hack and cybersecurity in general. I wouldn't be surprised if they were asked to stay in China simply to "help monitor oppressive movements and government action", or something along those lines.

Re:That didn't take long. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136068)

Yes they have [redfin.com]

Re:That didn't take long. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31137282)

1) That is not a Jumbo. That http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Aarg742-txl.jpg [wikimedia.org] is a jumbo. Note the two passenger decks and the signature hump in the front section.

2) What multi-billionaires buy with their private cash is pretty much their own stuff.

3) Flying around with your private jet all day long exposes you to much higher levels of cosmic radiation being halfway up the ozone layer. It is contributing to airspace crowding, airport waiting time, fuel wast, ozone depletion, particulate dust emissions - and Chemtrail panic.

The actual harmful effects are rather humble.

Dumping a ton of mercury in the Amazon river would be worse. They dumped 2000 tons and nobody cared for twenty years.
http://www.tierramerica.net/2005/0806/iacentos.shtml [tierramerica.net]

I suggest we concentrate on mercury, lead and dioxin contamination first before we cry for the Red err Green Army to clear out a few runway slots at San Francisco airport.

Re:That didn't take long. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31137224)

Google has never purchased a jumbo jet, and neither have it's founders.

The two founders bought a 767 back in 2005. They then had an argument over the kind of beds to put in it [theregister.co.uk] . Starting a post with a factual inaccuracy in a paragraph by itself isn't usually a good start.

Re:That didn't take long. (1)

Doggabone (1025394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31141494)

Google has never purchased a jumbo jet, and neither have it's founders.

The two founders bought a 767 back in 2005. They then had an argument over the kind of beds to put in it [theregister.co.uk] . Starting a post with a factual inaccuracy in a paragraph by itself isn't usually a good start.

It's not a factual inaccuracy. The Boeing 767 is a widebody jet, but not a jumbo.The photos immediately above, or a few seconds of fact checking, show the difference. The Google jet is a smaller 767, the 767-200. They bought it from Qantas airlines, who would have carried 180 passengers on it, and the Google refit can board 50. The Boeing 747 is a jumbo jet and can carry about 500 passengers because it is a significantly larger plane.

Not that I see anything evil in buying a plane, nor do I imagine that "do no evil" is often interpreted as more than "do no shit that I don't like". There is more than three words [google.com] behind the motto. Not that anyone is interested.

Re:That didn't take long. (1)

trapnest (1608791) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135662)

u mad?

Re:That didn't take long. (1)

jon3k (691256) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135352)

I think none of us actually knows what's going on behind the scenes between Google and the Chinese government.

Re:That didn't take long. (2, Insightful)

JohnFen (1641097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135404)

I don't care what goes on behind the scenes. I care about the end result. And this end result, while unsurprising, sucks.

Google's soul is still sold, and they haven't reduced their evil level one bit. So sad.

Re:That didn't take long. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31141054)

Maybe the Chinese government asked them to continue operations to help lure out the attackers? I have absolutely no idea, and neither do you, literally anything could be going on, we have no idea.

Re:That didn't take long. (1)

jopsen (885607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135544)

And here we thought Google had a strong backbone to stand up to china. Apparently not.

As much as I despise censorship... I respect the fact the cooperations cannot dictate politics in China...

Google shouldn't have to stand up to the Chinese government, the Chinese people should... And probably will... My guess is they're not ready yet...

Re:That didn't take long. (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#31137478)

the Chinese people should... And probably will... My guess is they're not ready yet...

Meaning, the people are in beta?

Re:That didn't take long. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31142580)

I think the average chinese will be quick to admit that they are pre-alpha. They themselves think they are not prepared to do a lot of things right, and always give excuses to a lot of problems occurring in the country (such as corruption, bad manners etc). I have heard these to death:

1. China is too big
2. There are too many chinese people
3. I think that (some modern country) did this (very bad thing) once (maybe 200 years ago)

Excuses, excuses. I hope some chinese grow some backbone soon.

Re:That didn't take long. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135602)

This was for Google a strategic blunder of epic proportions. Never go on the attack if you can't follow up on it. Before this all happened, China had to consider the possibility that Google would pull out or refuse to censor, but now China knows that Google will bow to their every wish. Good going!

Re:That didn't take long. (1)

dirtymentality (1724268) | more than 4 years ago | (#31149746)

I don't think China ever gave a shit if Google stayed or not considering there are plenty of other search engines around to take up Google's meager market share.

Re:That didn't take long. (4, Insightful)

Virak (897071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135906)

That's because the summary is terrible, and so is the person who wrote it, and also the Slashdot editors, for posting it.

Google appears to be content to remain in China doing business as usual while it finds a way to work within the system, according to one of the search giant's founders. This despite a strong statement 30 days ago that it would stop censoring search results in China and possibly pull its business out of that country.

The usage of "despite" here would suggest there's some sort of contradiction betweeen these sentences, however Google's original post said:

We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.

Which is to say, the lack of obvious action thus far isn't particularly notable. When it's been half a year and there's been no further news, then you can start bitching, but not now.

In the mean time, shortly after we celebrated google.cn lifting censorship, the exact same censorship has been quietly re-enabled

And this part is just outright false. They were never disabled in the first place, as noted even by several comments in the article that was linked to there. Furthermore, Google's announcement never said anything like that they'd be immediately removing the censorship.

Basically, there's nothing of note here and anyone whining about how Google hasn't pulled out and uncensored their search engine and organized an elite team to overthrow the oppressive Chinese government and given everyone on Earth their own personal unicorn has gotten vastly inflated expectations due to poor reading comprehension.

Re:That didn't take long. (1)

yuhong (1378501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31138038)

And this part is just outright false. They were never disabled in the first place, as noted even by several comments in the article that was linked to there. Furthermore, Google's announcement never said anything like that they'd be immediately removing the censorship.

Yea, I remember there was a lot of confusion over this, partly because English-language searches were never censored.

Who expected it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136284)

In business as in life, if you feel you are in an uncomfortable situation and have exhausted the clear possibilities open to you, so that you are going to take unilateral action - you TAKE IT, you don't announce that you 'intend to take it'.

If Google WAS happy with Chinese censorship policies (and hence as mercenary as they are accused of) they clearly wouldn't even have raised this in the first place. There was clearly nothing to gain and no reason to 'appease' a strong anti-Google activist group (if such even exists) in the short term, given that these same would feel let down a short time later.

This was simply a negotiation ploy. Google doesn't have a 100% do-or-die stance towards _anything_, but they are clearly not comfortable with the censorship either, and the thing to do then is to try to get your way. Trying to get your way means applying leverage and pressure, such as veiled threats and implications. I would actually say that the massive public reaction WEAKENED Google's hand, because the public expectation for action was so strong that when they had to let that down it became blatantly obvious that it was an empty threat. Google was probably taken aback at the publicity as well. The Chinese could call back three days later and ask "Well, when do you leave?"

Not really a surprise. (0)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#31134980)

Look this way while I go the other.

Pussies n/t (1)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31134986)

-Filter prevention-

Too expensive to not be evil (5, Insightful)

hobbes75 (245657) | more than 4 years ago | (#31134994)

Obviously not being evil is too expensive... maybe that explains the amount of evil in the world in general.

Re:Too expensive to not be evil (4, Interesting)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135068)

Obviously not being evil is too expensive.

It could also be, "Leave and we'll kill your family." Or economic threats, or they could have threatened anyone who ever worked in the China offices with arrest and prosecution, they have a lot of ugly tools at their disposal. Probably not, but when you're dealing with a government you don't always know the whole story.

I'm just saying it's a little early to condemn Google before we get more facts.

Re:Too expensive to not be evil (2, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135098)

It could also be, "Leave and we'll kill your family." Or economic threats, or they could have threatened anyone who ever worked in the China offices with arrest and prosecution, they have a lot of ugly tools at their disposal. Probably not, but when you're dealing with a government you don't always know the whole story.

I don't know if China would mistreat former Google employees if Google simply left. But I'd say there's a darned good chance they would detain and otherwise mistreat Google employees if Google were to start openly claiming that China was behind the attacks; you just can't expect them to badmouth China's government while they still have people there.

Re:Too expensive to not be evil (4, Informative)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135770)

good chance they would detain and otherwise mistreat Google employees if Google were to start openly claiming

Foreign executives being arrested for political reasons? [time.com] Sounds like they should be clamoring over each other on the roof to get a spot on the last chopper out of Beijing. Not a slow scaling-back of operations.

Re:Too expensive to not be evil (1)

Macfox (50100) | more than 4 years ago | (#31138778)

And detained without charge for over 6 months. It was just last week, charges were layed.

The gutless Australian goverment did little for fear of upsetting a huge trading partner.

Re:Too expensive to not be evil (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31140016)

Shoot, for a second there, I thought it would be a link to the Quantas execs held, but not "arrested" in Vietnam. I haven't heard anything about that in a while.

Re:Too expensive to not be evil (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135272)

Obviously not being evil is too expensive.

It could also be, "Leave and we'll kill your family." Or economic threats, or they could have threatened anyone who ever worked in the China offices with arrest and prosecution, they have a lot of ugly tools at their disposal. Probably not, but when you're dealing with a government you don't always know the whole story.

I'm just saying it's a little early to condemn Google before we get more facts.

So, you'll just make facts up?

Why are you making up excuses for Google?

Re:Too expensive to not be evil (1)

stimpleton (732392) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135500)

It could also be, "Leave and we'll kill your family."

I would assume Google to be a very smart business with smart advisors.
In that apparent absence let me provide said advice as it seems to difficult for google to see...
1. Silently step down services
2. If questioned, purport not reading highly intelligent population & user Trends
3. Leave, w/o press release.
4. ???
5. Take potential profit hit on the chin.

"I'm just saying it's a little early to condemn Google before we get more facts"
Nah. They engineered it like a North Korean missile test announcement, when the People's Republic is over due their stipend from --insert country here--.

Re:Too expensive to not be evil (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31137232)

If Google didn't have the means of doing what they claim they would do, they shouldn't have said that in the first time.
I still hope that negotiation is happening and its result will comfort us that the "don't be evil" motto is a bit more that a motto but I am growing delusional day after day...

Re:Too expensive to not be evil (1)

Baloo Uriza (1582831) | more than 4 years ago | (#31138042)

At what point do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few?

Re:Too expensive to not be evil (1)

dirtymentality (1724268) | more than 4 years ago | (#31149828)

"leave and we'll kill your family" is pretty dramatic since even the worst political dissidents only get jail time. But hey, free to spread as much negativity as possible on China in order to make Google look better.

Re:Too expensive to not be evil (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135814)

Not being evil isn't too expensive. It just tends to get in the way of making profits.

So in summary... (1)

williamhb (758070) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136162)

...they thought about pulling out of China, but then they decided "Don't. Be evil."

Uh (3, Insightful)

mikkelm (1000451) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135002)

Aren't these submissions supposed to be moderated to keep these walls of partially intelligible text off the main page?

I am so surprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135004)

LOL

Right. (4, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135014)

Top businesspeople in company overrule moral arguments from staff in order to ensure future profits.

News at eleven.

Re:Right. (2, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135030)

At Google, the businesspeople were kind of the ones making the complaints to begin with.

Bad Move (5, Insightful)

UndyingShadow (867720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135022)

The quickest thing Google can do to lose the confidence of its users is be Two-Faced. With all the recent privacy concerns, if Google starts acting one way after saying "Don't be Evil," it's going to make everyone question if Google can be trusted. Can they?

Re:Bad Move (1)

sictransitgloriacfa (1739280) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135198)

Bad move? Really? What are people going to do about it if Google chooses to be evil? Stop using Google? Seriously? Does anyone here go a single day without using Google a dozen times at least? Can even the technically-adept people here get along easily without it? How about the other 95% of web users?

Google is at least as immune from criticism as Microsoft, at this point, and they know it.

Re:Bad Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135374)

Does anyone here go a single day without using Google a dozen times at least?

No, but stopping would be easy-sauce. The hard part is finding a non-evil alternative. I can't speak for the rest of the Internet, however.

Re:Bad Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135418)

There are other search engines, email providers, map sites etc. If Google went away, they would quickly become just as good because the demand is there and the amount of open data is increasing fast. There are ways of using Google without letting them track and profile you. If you as a "technically-adept" person have let yourself lock in, that's your problem.

Re:Bad Move (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135448)

Bad move? Really? What are people going to do about it if Google chooses to be evil? Stop using Google? Seriously? Does anyone here go a single day without using Google a dozen times at least?

Actually, yes, I have been doing without Google for a couple of years now. I started weaning off when Google started censoring their Chinese search engine in the first place.

Admittedly, I do wish Google wouldn't be evil, because they have nice tools, but between the censorship, spying, and throwing their weight around like the monopolist they are striving to be, I have no hope that they'll be any different than any other huge corporation.

Re:Bad Move (2, Interesting)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135566)

Does anyone here go a single day without using Google a dozen times at least? Can even the technically-adept people here get along easily without it? How about the other 95% of web users?

Well, I use Google quite extensively (lemme think, Gmail, Maps, Reader, Calendar, Documents, and general search). If I decided today that Google was Teh Evil, could I get away? Let's see:

Gmail: easy - I use it mainly as an aggregator for my "real" accounts (almost nothing comes addressed to the gmail account), and because of the nice web interface. Turn off the forwarding, pick everything up in PortableApps-Thunderbird. (Or I could use my host's inferior webmail, as a backup plan).

Maps/Earth: I'd miss these ones (again, because they work), but MapQuest or Bing Maps will work as well.

Reader: heck, any RSS reader will replace this. I think Thunderbird does RSS feeds (if we want to keep portable).

Calendar: I think there's a PortableApps for this - looks like Mozilla Sunbird. (Again, I'd miss some of the features, but it's totally doable.)

Documents: OpenOffice. (Again, also in PortableApps form). I don't use Docs for anything serious anyways.

general search: Pick whatever you like.

So, could I get away from Google Apps? Yep - PortableApps + USB key gives me pretty much the same portability and flexability (and gets me off the cloud). Now, it could be said that I'm trading one Overlord for another, but I imagine if I dug around a bit I'd find other alternatives as well.

That's the one advantage Microsoft has over Google - it's a lot harder to replace your operating system than your search provider.

Re:Bad Move (1)

Thoreauly Nuts (1701246) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136084)

Does anyone here go a single day without using Google a dozen times at least?

Absolutely. I can't even use Google by accident by following a link as their entire domain and all of their subsidiary's domains that I know of are completely blocked from my network.

This has had virtually no impact whatsoever on my existence. There are plenty of replacements for everything they do.

Re:Bad Move (1)

JohnFen (1641097) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135436)

it's going to make everyone question if Google can be trusted. Can they?

No.

This has been another episode of short answers to easy questions.

Re:Bad Move (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136302)

In 6 months 99% of Google's customers wont remember this. It was too expensive for them to pull out, i'm honestly surprised they said they were going to in the first place..

Mixed results (5, Informative)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135032)

It's true that the tank man does not rank number one on "tiananmen" as it does on google.com - but if I type tiananmen into the search box, the top suggestions are

tiananmen square protest
tiananmen square 1989
tiananmen square tank
tiananmen tank
tiananmen square tank man
tiananmen tank man

And if I make the search more specific by adding "tank", I do get a few copies of the infamously censored image on page 1, even on Google.cn.

Of course, I haven't digged this deeply before, so I don't know if the censorship was always this half-assed.

Re:Mixed results (2, Informative)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135052)

PS: I can only use image search to check up on google.cn censorship, obviously, because I can't read Chinese.

But you are doing the search from a Chinese IP? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135168)

Google knows if your origin IP is chinese. I'm sure you get different results for google.cn if you are in china or out.

is chinese for 'tank man' .... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135208)

http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&source=hp&q=&btnG=Google+&aq=f&oq=

get's you the images of the tank man.

Re: is chinese for 'tank man' .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135242)

+1 Informative, lol

When will Slashdot stop censoring Chinese? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135468)

and all the other languages that aren't written in ASCII. Unicode has been around for twenty years FFS.

PS It's really annoying when (1)

trapnest (1608791) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135692)

people start sentences in the subject bar.

Re:Mixed results (1)

cavedweller96 (1549997) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135314)

yea, It has always been like that. I tried this a year or so ago and i could find tank man pictures... with a little digging. It might also have more restrictive filtering if you have a china IP address. come on Google... make us proud and PULL OUT

Re:Mixed results (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135502)

Not Mixed Results, obvious censorship.

I search "tiananmen square tank" on google.com, go to images, I get over 100 images.
I search "tiananmen square tank" on google.cn, go to images, I get over 1 images, which when clicked on, gets me a curt line of chinese text, instead of whatever page that image came from.

So there is nothing mixed about it, google is censoring chinese communications on behalf of the chinese government. There is no doubt in my mind they do, and will continue to do whatever Chinese , U.S. or other governments ask them to do. Someday the U.S. will concoct some emergency, and will require google to give them all of their user data, and google will comply. So act accordingly.

Re:Mixed results (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135858)

It could just be that the newly uncensored results are still inheriting their lame PageRank standings that got choked by censorship.

Try "tiananmen square massacre pictures" (1)

gjt (93855) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136444)

Try that query then look at the results. Compare the results from the query between google.cn and google.com. It's censored. Sad.

Re:Mixed results (1)

Brian Quinlan (252202) | more than 4 years ago | (#31137138)

If you search for tank man directly [google.cn] then you get thousands of results including 4 pictures of him in front of the tanks at the top of the results page.

Re:Mixed results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31137346)

I've heard that the results are different if you use chinese characters instead of english/roman/whatever characters. Perhaps someone with more time who wants to earn some karma can dig up the equivalent in chinese characters?

Re:Mixed results (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31142756)

I wonder how you got that. I am accessing from Japan and I couldn't get any of those, whether searching in Mandarin or in English (using the search terms you used).

At the end of the search there is the usual "some results are not shown to comply with the local rules and regulations" (in Mandarin).

So I call shenanigan on the results you obtained.

As a fan for Google, I am very disappointed.

Doing a deal with the devil (2, Insightful)

NetNinja (469346) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135050)

Doing business with a country where freedom of information is counter productive to your business model makes no sense.

when money is God WHO CARES RIGHT?

Re: Google.cn Still Remains in China (4, Funny)

HoldmyCauls (239328) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135056)

Well, yeah...

Where else would you put it?

Re: Google.cn Still Remains in China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135132)

Damn it, that made my day. Well played, sir, well played.

Re: Google.cn Still Remains in China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135294)

Well, yeah...

Where else would you put it?

Australia?

Re: Google.cn Still Remains in China (1)

d_54321 (446966) | more than 4 years ago | (#31140018)

Where else would you put what?

My guess: (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135178)

Some special Chinese agent made a visit at Brin’s house at night, reminding him that they could make him disappear “just like that”.

I hope not. But it would not surprise me a bit if this was how it happened.

Re:My guess: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31138396)

Some special Chinese agent made a visit at Brin’s house at night, reminding him that they could make him disappear “just like that”.

I hope not. But it would not surprise me a bit if this was how it happened.

What? Insightful?

Re:My guess: (1)

dirtymentality (1724268) | more than 4 years ago | (#31149894)

China has now become the bogey man. Say your pledge of allegiance 3 times before bed like a good little boy or the evil chinese monsters will come out and eat you! Ignorance. Fear. Paranoia.

Incorrect information in the summary (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135188)

the exact same censorship has been quietly re-enabled

Take a closer look at the source of that information. Google didn't lift the censorship and then re-enable it. Who was the source claiming that the censorship had already been lifted? If you look on the source that the slashdot article cites, that source says the rumors about the censorship having been lifted already were not correct. So, it seems no changes have been made to the search results yet. Did Google ever make a statement about how long time they would be willing to spend with the Chinese government on working out a solution? The way I read the announcement is that Google will spend a period negotiating with the Chinese government, and if it doesn't produce any results, they will shut down google.cn. The problem is, I don't know how long that period is going to be. If Google had stated, that it's patience would last another month, and they didn't make a move yet, they haven't stood by their word. But I haven't seen a statement from Google saying one month. I would have been surprised if such negotiations could have finished in a single month. Does anybody here have experience negotiating with the Chinese government? Can you tell us how fast results can be reached?

Re:Incorrect information in the summary (1)

hey (83763) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135236)

There were postings at the time showing search results from google.cn as queried from China.
The censorship was not there.

Re:Incorrect information in the summary (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136094)

The summary discloses the filter has been re-enabled since it was transiently lift. That can be verified by going to google.cn and do a search in Chinese. It does not counter google's claim of "will leave".

There is no substantial report of exactly which department the company is negotiating with, and from Chinese news sources oversea or in Hong Kong, some departments came out and denied [wikipedia.org] any negotiation on going or that the company has made any formal complain. One would expect the government agency to act quickly on such high-profile case.

maybe it is just a populist marketing stunt by google.

Well of course (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135290)

Someone at Google obviously understands politics and the sheep that "believe." Say one thing and do another. For example, W - I want a humble foreign policy, no nation building etc. Obama - I am going to bring the troops home, I am going to close Guantanamo. Blah Blah Blah. The suckers buy it every time.

Not important? WTF? (1)

cbope (130292) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135732)

So Brin now says that it's not important, whether or not the Chinese gov't is behind the attack? WTF? Of course it's important, it makes all the difference in the world if this is state sponsored. And I thought Google was growing a spine, apparently not. Move along, nothing to see here...

Google, you are quickly losing any respect I had left for you.

Re:Not important? WTF? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31136066)

...because of a slashdot summary? Do you respect anyone?

Bill Gates bats for totalitarian POV (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31135772)

One of China's communist controlled tabloids recently printed this headline Bill Gates bats for China [peopledaily.com.cn] . Perhaps Google should be faulted for tolerating China's totalitarian regime, but Microsoft embraces it. After all, when Gates says, "The Chinese efforts to censor the Internet have been very limited.", he means that you can access Microsoft.com and MSN in China. He's happy enough that all potential threats to both the Communist and Microsoft power structure, (facebook, blogspot, youtube, wikipedia, google...) are blocked or filtered in China. I was somewhat surprised (maybe I shouldn't have been), that the Chinese government seems to have a default blacklist policy. New webdomains are blocked even though they have almost no content (much less content critical of this government.) The people of China are wonderful, they deserve much more than the current regime has any intention of providing. We can thank Bill Gates of Microsoft for looking the other way while the government of a country where he stands to make billions leaves its own people in poverty. Wal-Mart and many other corporations have the same "don't ask, don't tell" policy when dealing with China's or indeed any other totalitarian government. Thank you Google for at least showing the world that the emperor has no clothes. Many of us will always respect that. And whether it is tomorrow or 1000 years from now, when the good people of China finally find their way out from under their government's oppression, they will thank you too.

The buck stops in China evidently... (2, Interesting)

Chas (5144) | more than 4 years ago | (#31135836)

Not that I was expecting any better from them. Too much money involved. Still, doesn't stop me from being disappointed anyhow.

Yes, but WHY? (1)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136002)

Given: the summary is correct. Why might Google do this? The tone of the summary seems to accuse them of doing so, and that this is bad, with 'proof' being statements taken out of context and placed within the context which is being implied. But you can't get from thesis to QED without some logical connections more than "we say so".

The Chinese (gov't.; from the ministry of defense offices) have been attacking private (initially US and UK based Falun Gong and Free Tibet sites) and government web sites and other systems for 10 years now. If they wanted to get away with it, rather than it being known they could and would do so, that's plenty of time to learn to do so. That's also plenty of time for the US et al. to make and/or cut a deal with China for it to stop. But they/we haven't been able to.

Google has more investment in seeing this outcome than the US government, and has more resources on the ground in China that can be bargained with in order to make it happen.

Google can make happen what the US can't. And they're trying to. Google is outperforming the US government in terms of dealing with China in the context of the net. And yet people insist on seeing this as Google's continued wrong doing. But why?

Censorship? Here comes a clue. Catch: Most of the people in China want it. Nobody outside that nation has a right to tell it how to operate. And if those outside that country are dedicated to democracy as they claim, they wouldn't want to over ride the wishes of those people or their government. You can not like the fact that censorship is the choice of that country, and that's about all you can do, or you can prove yourselves hypocrites by supporting what amounts to subversion of the government of the world's largest nation.

As a business, Google doesn't pretend to such principles. They can exercise their options over the full range of possible behaviors. They can, in this fashion, accomplish what the US and others have been claiming they want to see happen -- an end to China's computer based hostilities. So, would you rather Google accomplish what people have been claiming they want to see China do -- stop the attacks -- or would you rather Google adhere to a set of principles that were someone attempting to do so upon you and yours, you'd consider and even worse attack? And should you see being forced into this choice as a kind of blackmail, welcome to global politics as practiced by most nations, according to the game rules set down and practiced by the US and allies. And last we looked, China was an ally no less than Israel (just as an example, not as a specific point to make), who doesn't engage in computer warfare with the US, but does engage in good old fashioned espionage against us.

Whether can't or won't, the US isn't stopping China and can't let itself cut the kind of deal Google can.

Re:Yes, but WHY? (1)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31138216)

Censorship? Here comes a clue. Catch: Most of the people in China want it.

...according to government-sponsored polls, reported by state-run media. And Sadaam won re-election with 100% of the vote.

you can prove yourselves hypocrites by supporting what amounts to subversion of the government of the world's largest nation.

Why would NOT supporting an authoritarian government like China make us hypocrites? Most people who live in representative governments value personal rights and freedom, not slavish obedience to governmental authority. As a simple example: people cannot sell themselves into slavery (see: inalienable rights [wikipedia.org] ), as this would violate their natural rights, even by their own consent.

And last we looked, China was an ally no less than Israel

We spy on and are spied on by pretty much every other country, but your equivocation is growing absurd.

As a business, Google doesn't pretend to such principles.

They set themselves up as the guys in the white hats, remember? Google's motto "Don't be evil?" ring a bell?

War of Internet Addiction (1)

kencf0618 (1172441) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136468)

Check out the WoW machinima --it's had resonance far beyond the gaming community.

http://digicha.com/?p=125 [digicha.com]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA (1, Funny)

superyanthrax (835242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136488)

I guess Google couldn't live without it's 25% market share in China. Clearly it needs the cash. We don't need Google, but Google needs us, and that's a fact.

All you morons who thought Google would actually cause China to cave and not the other way around, how does that crow taste?

Also, what a retarded article summary, clearly if they didn't follow our laws we were going to kick them out of China, the "concrete action" the summary refers to. The implicit threat of this was obviously enough for them to cave. Again, we don't need Google, but Google needs us.

I'm very glad that Sergey Brin realized this (1)

justkeeper (1139245) | more than 4 years ago | (#31136708)

"I think that the Chinese government has tens of millions of people in it. If you look at the army, the associated army, and whatnot, that's larger than most countries by far. So even if there were a Chinese government agent behind it, you know, it might represent a fragment of policy, as it were." from TFA

Lots of multinationals have this problem. (2, Interesting)

ErichTheRed (39327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31137376)

Imagine if this wasn't censorship of search results that we were talking about. Instead, imagine that the Chinese government looked the other way while local officials demanded bribes for keeping the office utilities running. If you're a multinational company, those are the kind of things you need to deal with...and reconcile with a different set of ethics.

Companies need to decide whether or not they are willing to play by the local rules when they jump into an international market. Those bribes they pay may not be a good ethical choice, but they may make the company much more profitable. Since company shareholders are the only concern for most companies, they need to set aside their feelings and do what the local government says.

Personally, I think what they're doing is fine, simply because it's not our place to tell a foriegn government what to do. It's their country, and human rights abuses, censorship, Taiwan and the Dalai Lama shouldn't really matter to American citizens. That's how China chooses to keep their country in line (and growing economically at 10%+ per year, I might add.) It seems to work well for them, and even if it didn't, we can't tell them otherwise. Doing so puts us on the same Cold War era "keeping the world safe for democracy" bandwagon that hasn't worked for us in four wars since WW2. I've long held the belief that once we solve 100% of our social problems at home, then we can go lecture people around the world about how to behave.

Why do people care what google.cn says? (1)

Evro (18923) | more than 4 years ago | (#31137546)

Isn't the important thing what Google.cn returns for someone in the USA, it's what it returns for someone in China. Why would the censoring be done by site rather than by querying IP?

Re:Why do people care what google.cn says? (1)

Evro (18923) | more than 4 years ago | (#31137562)

Oops... I need a do-over:

The important thing isn't what Google.cn returns for someone in the USA, it's what it returns for someone in China. Why would the censoring be done by site rather than by querying IP?

slow news day is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31137572)

way to show them Sergey.

Google Reality Check (1, Insightful)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 4 years ago | (#31138092)

Google, as a publicly traded company, has only one obligation: to make a profit for shareholders. Let that soak in.

In doing so they have to do things like bow to the Chinese, track all of your searches, etc. It's business folks!

Unfortunately that also means that "do no evil", is more of a guideline than a rule. Maybe they should change their motto to "We do less evil than everyone else"

Really I'm amazed that anyone is surprised by this.

Re:Google Reality Check (4, Interesting)

swillden (191260) | more than 4 years ago | (#31139938)

Google, as a publicly traded company, has only one obligation: to make a profit for shareholders.

That's not necessarily true. A publicly-traded corporations primary obligation isn't to make a profit, it's to fulfill the goals laid out in the articles of incorporation and the prospectus that defined the public offering. In most cases, those documents say that the primary goal of the corporation is to make a profit, and that, then, is what the company's directors must focus on doing. But there are plenty of corporations, especially non-profits and for-profits that have a "social good" agenda, with different goals, and the directors of those corporations would be failing in their duty to their shareholders if they focused on profit at the expense of their stated goals.

Was "Don't be evil" part of Google's corporate charter? And if so, was it given an equal or higher priority than profitability? I don't know, but if so, then Google's directors have a legal obligation to abide by it.

Re:Google Reality Check (1)

PetoskeyGuy (648788) | more than 4 years ago | (#31140286)

Someone mod parent up.
Thank you.

Re:Google Reality Check (1)

dirtymentality (1724268) | more than 4 years ago | (#31150056)

A corporation is nothing more than a entity that establishes a legal framework within a country's legislation. Yes there are entities that exist who have specific agendas and goals besides making money. However, the number one goal of any BUSINESS is to make money, plain and simple. It is the heart and soul of capitalism and the engine that drives this country. This is plain to anyone who has worked in business, financing, trade, etc. Of course, a company can have secondary goals, such as meeting laws and regulations, or generating publicity and consumer good will. These are also important, but ultimately exist to support a business' long term profitability.

Re:Google Reality Check (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 4 years ago | (#31151852)

Have you ever drafted articles of incorporation and filed them to create a corporation? I have, and while you're certainly right that the primary goal of most businesses is to make money, the founders of a corporation are free to put whatever goals they like in the articles. Those goals are then carried over to the prospectus provided to potential investors in an IPO, and they define what the potential shareholders expect the company to do.

Both the articles of incorporation and the IPO prospectus are legally binding documents. A company whose stated goal is to save whales and whose CEO then embarks on any sort of activity that does not have whale-saving as its primary goal is at risk of being ejected by the board, and perhaps even criminal charges.

As I said, I don't know if "Don't be evil" is a formally-specified corporate goal of Google. But if it is, failing to pursue that goal can land the executives and board in a lot of hot water -- and more to the point, if it is a charter goal, forgoing profit to pursue it will *never* get them in trouble with the authorities.

Re:Google Reality Check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31141576)

Google, as a publicly traded company, has only one obligation: to make a profit for shareholders. Let that soak in.

Really I'm amazed that anyone is surprised by this.

You are a stupid twit. As far as public obligations go, obeying the law - U.S. first and foremost for U.S.-based Google - is more important. You want to let something soak in, you are a fucking retard. Plenty of companies put principle before profit everyday. Some due it for publicity, others do it as a long-term strategy, others really are that ethical. That you do not understand the reasons from either a strategic or philosophical perspective only speaks to what a fucking numbskull your bitch of a mother spawned.

Google Search Language Preferences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31138334)

Anyone else notice the change to Search Language Preferences after the Google/China incident? It may just be a coincidence but the "Search for pages written in any language (Recommended)" option is no longer the default or an available option. The only option now is "Prefer pages written in these language(s)" with one of the languages sometimes selected and unselectable by default depending on your "Interface Language" setting or which localized version of Google you visit.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>