Google Admits Compromising Principles in China 459
muellerr1 writes "Google co-founder Sergey Brin admitted that it had adopted 'a set of rules that we weren't comfortable with' in their Chinese activities. Though it doesn't yet sound like they're admitting to actually doing evil, it does appear that they are thinking about pulling out of China rather than compromise their 'do no evil' motto."
It all makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
Theory of political composting (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about that.
The thing is, uncomfortable engagement can be more effective than complete, self-satisfied and puritanical shunning. There's no end to what people will do to push back against those who shun them. In fact it becomes a useful explanation for every failure: the bad guys are out to get us. Think Castro.
Most of the time advocates of "constructive engagement" are just hypocrites who want to pay lip service to right and wrong. Google is not like that, I think, but it puts them in a sticky position. Some will fight them on moral grounds. Others will waffle in between. It's a messy and uncomfortable situation, whereas boycott is very clean and simple. The good thing about it is that it has the effect of making the party in question deal with the messiness, to explain and justify itself over and over. They'll spin, adjust, tweak and struggle to find some kind of comprimse that will square the circle. It's never enough to make them decide to take their ball and go home, but it never ends either. It'll be a continual embarassment. When the elite travel overseas, there'll always be a moment of uncomfortable silence when they talk to somebody while that person tries to figure out a way to navigate around the proverbial elephant in the room. Eventually, they may just decide it's eaasier to change than to put up with it. Think South Africa.
So, what I'm saying is it's a good thing that Google is involved with China, although it is not necessarily "good" in a moral sense. And at the same time it's also a good thing that China and Google are getting a PR hiding by people. If Google is forced out, let's hope it's after a long struggle. Then China and the paladins of human rights can start struggling over choice #2. Then #3, #4 etc.
It's an unappealing situation for the people involved, because it's messy. But messy is sometimes good. Keep it very nearly unbearably messy, but not quite. That's the ticket. Turn it into a tub of pig shit with a pot of gold at the bottom. Sooner or later they'll decide to quick trying to fish the pot out with a stick and muck out the shit.
Re:Theory of political composting (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It all makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
Can't enjoy unless perfect? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can insult the President, swear at the VP and still go home to your family. Try that in another country.
While the U.S. is slowly dying, it has been a wonderful place. Sadly the Republic turned into a Democracy and finally now into Lawyer and Mob rule. Sad days are ahead but looking back, we have changed the world. Slavery, woman's rights, equality, free speech.....thanks to a bunch of rebels in boats.
Re:Can't enjoy unless perfect? (Score:4, Informative)
Don't fool yourself: America had some early innovations, but has been very conservative ever since. It's what happens when you teach yourselves you're perfect already.
Re:It all makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh? they weren't denying censoring searches, it was written in plain text (chinese though) on the frigging result pages.
What they were denying was that it was evil, or that "bringing limited informations" was a worse evil than "not bringing any information at all". And I, for one, agreed with google on that one: most chinese don't care that their search results are censored, as long as Google only censors it's chinese-based services and clearly states that the results are filtered it can only bring a better content and a better awareness to the chinese.
If tomorrow my own country decided to start filtering information, I'd be hella glad if Google kept on feeding me with (filtered) search result if it told me that the results were filtered.
Re:It all makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
Now did that wording show up on the chinese version of google after results started being censored?
Re:It all makes sense (Score:4, Informative)
Does Google censor search results?
It is Google's policy not to censor search results. However, in response to local laws, regulations, or policies, we may do so. When we remove search results for these reasons, we display a notice on our search results pages. Please note: For some older removals (before March 2005), we may not show a notice at this time.
http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answe
Nice try though. Plus, it could be argued that the wording in your linked page was on their American website, while the censoring occurs on their Chinese webpage. Then, as a previous poster stated, right on the Google.cn results page, it lets you know if there are any results that have been censored.
The Tiananmen Square Example (Score:4, Interesting)
What are you talking about? Google.cn censors without notifying users that content is being removed. For example...
Here's a Google.com search for "tiananmen"
http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen [google.com]
Here's a Google.cn search for "tiananmen"
http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen [google.cn]
creepy huh?
Frontline did a piece about this a few months ago. It was called "The Tank Man" and it's viewable online.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/v
Watch part 6, "The struggle to control information." A journalist hands a picture of the tank man to several Chinese university students, and they have -no- idea what the picture is about. That's crazy.
Re:The Tiananmen Square Example (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fim
As shown in the (admittedly shitty) translation:
" According to local laws, regulations, and policies, not part of the search results show."
Babelfish shows the exact same thing, although you'll have to do that yourself since it appears I cannot link directly to a translated page like I can with Google.
So, with that in mind, how is Google censoring results without notifying their users, when it clearly says right on the page that results have been removed?
Re:The Tiananmen Square Example (Score:3, Informative)
Google does tell the users that the results are cencored. They even got blasted by the state ran media in China for doing so. (it was by XingHua I think...
Right at the bottom of the page is this
a rough translation is "according to local law and policies, some parts of the search results will not
Re:It all makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously, this requires constant examination. Someone who continues to expouse a principal yet do something else (c.f. Republican congress and fiscal responsibility) needs to be called out on their actions, but I'm willing to give Google a little bit of leeway... this time.
Re:It all makes sense (Score:3, Interesting)
My understanding of their moral 'compromise' was that they would provide the censored search, but to put the disclaimer on the bottom of each page stating (not in so many words): "your government forced us to censor the search results they don't want you talking about." The rationaliza
Good for Brin! (Score:4, Interesting)
Go Brin! Go Google!
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:4, Insightful)
If they pull out of China, it will be for business reasons, not moral ones. Sure, they get to act like they're doing it so they won't be "evil," but they'll really be doing it because they're afraid the bad publicity the China issue has been generating and will continue to generate will drag down their numbers in other areas.
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:2)
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:5, Funny)
Unless you consider successfully running a business to be evil,
Duh... we're liberals.
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:5, Insightful)
Taking a moral path is not about always being right. It is about always striving to be right & taking the care to reevaluate situations based on the current and future situations. I'm just glad there are still companies who know the M word.
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:2)
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:3, Interesting)
Search is not a product, the searchers are. Google decided access to that amount of searchers was worth the possible backlash. The argument that Google is at least doing some good in China is ridiculous, it was for money.
What good are they doing? Great
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:3, Interesting)
Censorship is wrong. It doesn't matter that censorship is going to happen in China whether you do it or someone else does it. And it makes no difference that you put a
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:3, Interesting)
Google's image (and stock valuation) are based heavily around the company's halo. They're a lot more sensitive to criticism of their integrity than Yahoo is, let alone Microsoft.
That said, I'll still give them credit for doing the right thing, should they actually do it. I do wonder if all the hyper-fanboys who were talking about how Google is saving China, so providing censored sear
pulling out more moral than staying out (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider this situation: Google abruptly ends service in China, replacing their main page with a brief message that says something like, "Google is halting search service in china because they are unable to comply with Chinese law." They could post this with no explanation, and then later they could post an explanation that gave their moral stance, with justification by example
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's up to all of us to make sure that good morals = good business.
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:5, Insightful)
There really is no externally observable difference between morality and publicity in this case. Their motto is "don't be evil." So they've set up their business so that being evil will generate a disproportionate amount of bad publicity. They've organized everything so that morality and publicity are inextricable: more so than in ordinary businesses. That in itself is admirable. But in the end, why does it matter what their internal motivations are? Why do you care? If we reward companies that do good and punish those that do bad, more will do good. If we punish those that do good with cynicism then there is no (business) reason for them to do good.
Ha! And now it makes sense (Score:3, Informative)
404 error. Server stopped responding. Blah blah generic (but obvious) "Great Firewall" block.
Google.com and gmail were down sporadicaly all day. My company is currently talking to google about training, i would have loved to have been in that office today watching them flip. Beijing will make you respect their power, if google doesnt want to play nice alibaba, yahoo, MSN and many others will. Remember that companies are not run by public opinion, t
Re:Minimum level of respect for other human begins (Score:3, Interesting)
STOP BITCHING WHEN THEY DID THE RIGHT THING.
"A company that supports censorship in other nations, while enjoying freedom in it's own is totally unacceptable."
Hate to break it
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:2, Insightful)
However, as long as there are companies who don't care (Microsoft, Yahoo etc.) it really doesn't matter all that much. In general morality is punished by the market. That's why Capitalism is an inhere
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:2)
Re:Good for Brin! (Score:3, Insightful)
The less moral? They explicitely state that search results were filtered out at the very top of each page that should've hold censored results for god's sake. And for non-filtered results they bring the google quality of searches and size of index to China, which is in my book a very good thing indeed.
What's left to the chinese once Google pulls out? Baidu, the chinese-gov-shoes-licker, Yahoo who helps imprison bloggers and MSN whose staff takes down blogs without even a warning mail? Woohoo, i'm sure that
Why now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking in Washington, Sergey Brin, Google's billionaire co-founder, said the company, which operates under the motto "do no evil", had adopted "a set of rules that we weren't comfortable with".
In a hint that Google could adjust its stance in China in the future, he added: "Perhaps now [emphasis mine] the principled approach makes more sense."
So what took you so long Sergey? Why now? Why couldn't you see this was a bad idea from the start? Talk about coming to the party late!
Just how much back-pedalling Google does now should be interesting, as this is no doubt going to cause revenue problems in the long run and a bit of a publicity flap in the short run, though if Google decides to finally stand on its principles and other companies like Microsoft and Yahoo don't follow along, it should regain a lot of standing in many people's eyes. Well, except for the Chinese government's anyway...
Re:Why now? (Score:2)
Re:Why now? (Score:2)
Maybe because it looked like a really good business opportunity back then, and doesn't look so hot right about now? I think perhaps they underestimated the American public's (and more importantly, Congress') interest in the activities of our technology companies in being the enablers of oppression overseas.
You don't just wake up one morning and decide ``hey, remember when we
Re:Why now? (Score:2)
Or perhaps they made a moral mistake in the first place and have now realized it....
Moral and Profitable and not opposites (Score:3, Insightful)
I like to use a swimming analogy. We're all in an infinite sea, with no shores and no bottom. To stay afloat (alive), you've got to do something that keeps you from sinking. The obvious answer here is "swim!", but consider that you could also hang off of
Re:Why now? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you actually had any morals, you would have realized that in the first place.
You mean you've never done anything wrong, that you knew was wrong at the time, and then later realized that you just can't live with it and have to fix it?
I'm not saying that's what's going on here, I have no idea whether or not Google is actually going to change it's approach to China, and I have no idea what the real motivations will be if they do, but I think it's important to remember that decisions are made by people, and even very moral people make mistakes. The way you can tell that they're very moral people is that they can't just leave it at that, they fix their mistakes if at all possible. It takes a great deal of moral courage to admit that you made a mistake and did a morally reprehensible thing, but admitting to it is a prerequisite to correcting it.
In this particular situation, I can see how the mistake could be made, pretty easily. The moral question isn't as clear cut as many here seem to think. Which will really help the Chinese people more, a censored search service or no search service? I also think Google made the wrong decision, but I can see how easy it would be to justify the one they made, particularly given the high incentive to do business in China.
If Google ends their censorship in China, it may well be for purely business reasons, and the moral issues may just be a smokescreen, but to presume that *must* be the case is excessively cynical. Don't attribute to malice (or evil) what can be adequately explained by incompetence (or error).
Re:Why now? (Score:2)
if Google decides to finally stand on its principles and other companies like Microsoft and Yahoo don't follow along, it should regain a lot of standing in many people's eyes.
Neither Microsoft or Yahoo have absurd company mottos legally binding them to moral behavior.
Re:Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Given what little we've heard about the internal debates at Google, they were crystal clear that it was a bad idea but decided the alternatives were even worse:
Problem. Chinese people lack access to non-governmental information
Answer. Do something that results in their government shutting down Google altogether.
Should you choose your actions based on their effects or on your principles? Ethicists could argue either side of that until you ran out of the room in boredom. Google chose, or tried to choose, the greatest good for the greatest number. We can all guess what rms would have done in their place.
It's called being human (Score:4, Insightful)
From their FAQ: [slashdot.org] I thought everyone on Slashdot hated the RIAA, the MPAA, and Microsoft. Why do you keep hyping CDs, movies, and Windows games?
Big corporations are what they are. They sell us cool stuff with one hand and tighten the screws on our freedoms with the other. We hate them every morning and love them every afternoon, and vice versa. This is part of living in the modern world: you take your yin with your yang and try to figure out how to do what's right the best you can. If you think it has to be all one way or the other, that's cool, share your opinions, but don't expect everyone else to think the same.
Nobody is perfect, not even Google.
will others follow suit? (Score:5, Interesting)
I certainly hope that other companies, particularly Yahoo, which has been implicated in providing information [amnesty.org] to Chinese authorities leading to the arrest of political dissidents, will feel pressured by Google's recent announcement to be more candid about their own policies regarding operations in China. If our big Internet players were to stand up for what is right, it'd be a powerful statement for human rights.
Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
they lose my trust (Score:2, Insightful)
Read the article. (Score:2)
Now they just need to admit that DRM on Google Video is evil, too, and they're back in my good books!
Yeah, right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Shareholders? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shareholders? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unbelievably, the choice between "Do Evil" and "Do no Evil" is irrelevant as Google is obliged by law to follow the shareholders interests above everything else.
Sad, sad, sad state of affairs, where a company is required by law to do what many consider to be immoral.
Re:Shareholders? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shareholders? (Score:5, Informative)
The law is also very flexible about allowing a company to determine what "shareholder interest" is. A large number of shareholders are interested in stock price and dividends but there are people who determine their investments beyond stock earning power. [scotsman.com]
Re:Shareholders? (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps, but remember that Brin and Page issued an "Owner's Manual" for their stock when it was issued, and that it was issued in two different classes. Class A stock has much lower voting representation than Class B stock (a ratio of 1:10 voting weight). Class B stockholders are the ones with real power to steer Google, and Google's Class B stock is tightly held. Brin and Page together hold 33% of the Class B stock, which is enough to ensure that they can direct the company.
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
It will be interesting to see how this holds against their primary competitor, Microsoft which has embraced the Chinese market. They do not stand to lose their image or their corporate motto of "Screw Everyone."
New Motto (Score:2, Funny)
What about US censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Admittedly, it doesn't go as far as China's censorship, but this is a slippery slope. Why is censorship there "evil", but censorship here is not? Google is complying with the law. Yes, I think it's a bad law. But since when is obeying the law evil? Why is it up to Google to crusade against government policy? Are they some kind of political super-hero?
Re:What about US censorship? (Score:2)
The difference is that the DMCA does not prevent you from expressing an opinion. If I write something critical of a person, an organization, or the government, the DMCA cannot legally be used to silence me. It can definitely be used to harass people (calling up my web host and claiming I have infringing material), but provided I have not actually violated copyright, nothing can be done.
Contrast this with China, where you can get thrown in jail for having a non-compliant opinion.
Re:What about US censorship? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google does indirectly link to the removed website (Score:2)
Yeah but google links to the complaint which is probably just as bad because it explicitly states which websites are removed. :) Jeez the website google links is a cournicopia of websites people think are either doing copyright infringement or selling warez.
Re:What about US censorship? (Score:2)
This might come as a surprise, but in a republic, *citizens get a say in determining what the laws are*.
In China, they don't.
Re:What about US censorship? (Score:2, Insightful)
If an when obeying a law (which may or may not be evil) causes you to do evil, you have done evil. The law is not a "get out of evil free" card.
Google's no-win situation around here. (Score:2, Interesting)
As much as we like to make fun of America, at least we don't have to worry about [severe]
Google employees in china (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google employees in china (Score:2)
I also wonder if it leaves the company open to some form of international litigation -
All eyes are on Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Many companies are starting to follow Google's lead in many ways and on many things. If they say they are considering pulling out and then fail to do it, the disappointment in Google will be enormous. If Google lived and prospered everywhere EXCEPT China, that could only serve to make Google look good and China look bad.
I feel pretty much the same about IP and DRM issues in the world where if the world refuses and legislates against IP and DRM leaving only the US with such restrictive laws, it will really make the US look bad and evil.
Ridiculous (Score:2, Interesting)
Did you RTFA? All he says is he can see why someone else would come to a different conclusion than they did. And it's not like Google pulling out is going to do a shit. You think making a search engine is something special? If Google pulls out, they'll just use some other censored search engine like Baidu. If eBay pulls out, they'll just use another online auction site. No matter what any corporation does, it won't have a damn effect on the grand scale in China. There is enough technical expertise there alr
Google (Score:3, Insightful)
Pulling out ??!? WOW ! (Score:3, Funny)
It might be so that we might need to ask vatican to bestow sainthood on google at this rate.
I have to admit im impressed.
Re:Pulling out ??!? WOW ! (Score:2)
Praise them when/if they do the right thing. Not when/if they consider doing the right thing.
Else I will consider a devout life.
I will consider doing more charity work.
I will consider devoting all my financial resources to helping the poor and underprivlidged.
And then I will ask to be cannonized myself.. WHEE.. I'm a saint!
Actually I think over at http://www.ulc.org/ [ulc.org] you can buy/donate your way to sainthood, but that's another story.
Re:Pulling out ??!? WOW ! (Score:2, Funny)
Amazing. (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Google didn't do evil... They just didn't do good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google didn't do evil... They just didn't do go (Score:2)
Why is it Google's job to reform China? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why there's anger at Google for obeying Chinese laws. Do I agree with those laws? Hell no. But business is business. Google doesn't make money from fostering democracy in foreign lands. They make money from selling ads. China is potentially a very large market, and so Google is doing what it has to as a profit-oriented venture.
If you feel the need to blame anyone, blame the dictators. Google is just doing business.
And before this discussion degenerates into WWII analogies, remember that Google is just a damn search engine and what's being repressed are just frigging web pages. No human is being abused or tortured by Google's actions.
The reaction I've seen on this site on others to Google's decision is way out of line to what was done.
I have no doubt that China will need to liberalize their government. If they want to be an effective technological power, they will need smart people and that means increasingly free access to information.
Re:Why is it Google's job to reform China? (Score:4, Insightful)
And before this discussion degenerates into WWII analogies, remember that Google is just a damn search engine and what's being repressed are just frigging web pages. No human is being abused or tortured by Google's actions.
Just doing business. Only following orders. Caught up with the mob. It's only the Communists. Too young to know better. To old to think straight. How many other excuses are there?
Bottom Line. Google are in bed with those dictators. Sure, maybe not every night of the week, but most nights. They're making money by colluding with a totalitarian state. No amount of excuses, handwringing, poignant apologies or clever excuses is going to change this fact.
If Google could not make money in China, they would never have sacraficed their oh so precious principles. But when faced with the mountains of riches on offer to them by simply caving into demands contrary to their stated values, they caved. Oh how they caved. They sold the good ship "Don't be evil" up the river and set sail for the high seas of profit, to return holds bursting with yuan and Party contacts. They caved, caved hard.
You want to keep making excuses for them, fine. While you're at it, make some excuses for arms dealers that sell to "choppn' off heads n' shit" third world dictators. Make some more for companies that forced bonded labourers and their children to toil for the sake of business. And don't forget to make some for yourself.
Re:Why is it Google's job to reform China? (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you think dictators get to be dictators in the first place? Business is not just business.
We should get it by now.. (Score:2, Interesting)
The more breathing room we give them as a company, and the less people target them, focusing law suits related to searching, with the only reason they sue google being they are the most recogn
This is a perfect example... (Score:4, Insightful)
-SmR
other evils (Score:3, Insightful)
Google drops conservative sites from Google News. [wnd.com] Interesting that 98% of all political donations by Google employees went to support Democrats. Also, Al Gore is a senior adviser to Google.
Now, I'm not playing a partisan finger-pointing game. But these kinds of "censorship" tactics give the appearance of "evil" worse than that which they are trying to avoid, IMO. Especially when there seems to be political motives. If some news site posts factual news, real honest truth, then I don't see how you can object to it on any basis just because you don't happen to like it. That holds whether the truth hurts the political Right or the political Left.
Talk v. Action (Score:3, Insightful)
It will boil down to which is more important, profits or ethics. They're a publically held company which makes me think ethics won't win.
g$$gle (Score:2)
As a company, they will always chase money. I doubt they will "pull out", the tie in is too strong for them to compete now.
What is the motto, really? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've heard both attributed to the Google motto, but they are very different imperatives.
There are moral models in which a good person might have to do an evil for some greater good. (Work with China for the purpose of engagement)
It would also be possible to produce horrible effect without ever commiting any identifiable evil act. (We are just following the local laws.)
Show them you care (Score:3, Informative)
What is everyone do mad about? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying Google can truly do no evil, I simply do not think they have done any evil here, not to merit the criticsm they have received for their actions at least.
Remember South Africa pre-1994? (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, Google run their server farms on cheap motherboards
The unpleasant truth is that it's damned nigh impossible to avoid doing business with China one way or another. And if you do manage to avoid China, then you will end up paying over the odds for everything you buy, and be unable to compete in the marketplace.
Write to your Elected Representatives and ask them why we are allowed to import goods which have been manufactured under conditions which would not be acceptable in the destination country? It's all very well for countries such as Britain and the USA to have environmental, consumer protection and workers' rights laws; but when imported goods sidestep those laws, locally-produced goods become uncompetitive and the benefits that should have brought by those laws are lost. Something's got to be wrong when it's cheaper to fly a plane halfway round the world and back than to treat your workers like human beings.
The best approach (Score:3, Insightful)
Should China's firewall decide to censor certain portions of the portal, or certain search terms, thats not a big deal; that's China's responsibility.
This means:
A) Google doesn't _really_ have to pull out; they just have to run their operations off-shore (from China).
B) Google doesn't have to actively work to circumvent Chinese law. That would be illegal. Rather, Google provides Chinese language search results to the whole world, and China is reponsible for filtering content at the ISP level.
C) Savvy internet users in China may be able to circumvent the law, similar to the way they current use proxies to get at unfiltered English language results.
This paints Google as a bastion of freedom, while still maintaining best-possible service in the Chinese language, and dumping all the responsibility of censoring to China's state-run ISPs.
Re:The best approach (Score:3, Informative)
Perspectives (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is what is the right action on googles part in this situation. If you look at the issue of ethical company practices, it is correct for a company to follow the laws of the country that its doing business in.
But in this case the law has to do with censorship and freedom of speech. Each culture has its own perspectives on freedom of speech. Even in the US, speech is not completly free (libel, slander, media gatekeepers, political correctness, hate speech).
China has its own ideas of what free speech means. Sure many people in the US and Europe dont agree with it. But at the same time, there hasnt been a revolution in China to change that. Its not Google's or any corporations job to change that. They are responsible to thier shareholders and responsible for following the law where ever they do buisness. Free speech in China will come, when the people of China want it.
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like you're saying that since greed is universal, it's acceptable to help an oppressive regime in the name of profit.
I know I'm going from zero to Godwin in only ten seconds, but the Nazis were just doing their jobs, too. Obviously there is a huge difference between filtering search results and gassing people and putting them in mass graves, but the logic doesn't improve any as the severity decreases.
Re:I disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets look at this a bit more rationally. Google provides a search service - arguably the best in the world - for the internet. I would call this 'good' and I think many would agree. China, however, has laws which make it illegal for Google to display results to certain searches properly. They "ask " Google to comply.
Google now has effectively two options. Comply and censor some searches, or don'
Re:Google did no evil (Score:2)
A) Comply with the Chinese government. You are supporting their 'evil' ways.
B) Refuse to comply and (evilly) deprive every Chinese citizen of what is arguably the world's best search engine, not to mention all their other projects that are doing quite well.
It's a no-win situation. I personally feel the chose the 'more evil' way, though. Make it VERY clear that Google doesn't want to abandon China and lay
Re:Google did no evil (Score:5, Insightful)
C) Don't bow to the Chinese government, they will not allow the site. They are the ones denying the Chinese people access to Google, not Google. Which means Google is doing no evil, but the Chinese government is.
You can't sugarcoat "Agree to censor" enough to make it not evil, sorry.
Re:Google did no evil (Score:2)
Yes but if you're providing the Chinese citizen with a dumbed down (censored) version of Google then you're not really providing them of the world's best search engine in the first place are you? Google is a great search engine because of both the search algorithm as well as the vast amount of content that it has indexed. You
No, it was evil. (Score:3, Interesting)
The Chinese government was asking them to cover up a government massacre of hundreds, possibly thousands, of people. To do such a thing is extremely disrespectful to those that were killed in this massacre.
Google claim that they want to give people the information they're lo
Re:No, it was evil. (Score:5, Interesting)
And you know what? Today, I ask myself which one I prefer. If I'm still in China, would I rather shows my child a website where the seach of that event simply returns no result, or would I want some prove that government still leave much work to be done, by pointing at the note in a google search page that shows me they are forced to censor something.
Which way to better let my child about the importances of freedom and the price we paid just to get make progress.
I fails to find any alternative to shows easily show prove, and easily be aware of what we are being hidden from.
I choose google.
Re:net neutrality in tfa (Score:2)
Re:net neutrality in tfa (Score:2)
That'll teach me to not use Preview.