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!

China In the Habit of Copying and Redirecting US Sites?

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the not-the-way-you-play-the-game dept.

Google 468

Want to know why US web companies have trouble making it in China? gaz_hayes passed us a link to the blog commiepod, which suggests that successful US websites are targeted by 'Chinese government backed companies.' "These companies copy the site, deploy it on a .cn domain, and then DNS poison or forcefully lower the bandwidth the US site. Just a few weeks ago google.com and google.cn were DNS poisoned across the entire Chinese internet and were being redirected to their Chinese competitor Baidu. This probably explains Google's 3rd quarter market share in China." This is a fairly serious accusation; anyone else have first-hand experiences that would back this up?

cancel ×

468 comments

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

FIRST TROUT! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400745)

I am a fish, a Chinese fish even.

Chinese (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21401127)

Chinese people eat their children.... The yellow menace... Back to the 30ths.... Everything that's wrong in the world is because the Chinese... oh and MS.

Re:FIRST TROUT! (3, Interesting)

PDXNerd (654900) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401387)

I agree. This story smells extremely fishy indeed, and not just because the "news source" reporting this has only been around for a week or so. Read here for another possible angle about what's going on here. http://kschofield.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!4C58DDFAA6673C69!1362.entry [live.com] The fourth comment down is the most pertinent information about what this may be about.

I can't imagine China would subvert such a large percentage of searches - that would be *really bad* for business (and public) relations with the west - also there would be a lot more information out there if this was actually happening on such a large scale.

Re:FIRST TROUT! (3, Interesting)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401457)

Give me a break. Just compare Google.com's top "tiananmen square" result to Google.cn:

        This one is for China [citw2008.com]
        This one is for the rest of us [wikipedia.org]

I support China's inclusion into the global economy. It helps raise many millions of people out of poverty, while providing solid incentives to move forward politically. However, let's not fool ourselves... China has a long way to go.

Sheesh... (2, Insightful)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400757)

It's almost like the Chinese are a little leery of the US having a very large amount of control over the Internet. Not that I condone their actions (if this is true), but I can't say I'd be totally surprised.

Re:Sheesh... (2, Insightful)

sigzero (914876) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400921)

No it could be it is just "China" and they way they do business in controlling their peoples access to the Internet.

Re:Sheesh... (2, Insightful)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401367)

Or, it could just poetic justice. If you do business with the devil, what do you expect? Fair treatment? For supporting China in censoring political content on the Internet, Google has done more evil than 99% of all US companies. If they lose in China anyway, it serves them right.

Re:Sheesh... (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400923)

It's almost like the Chinese are a little leery of the US having a very large amount of control over the Interne

Oh, give me a break. This has nothing to do with being leery of the US and everything to do with wanting to undermine foreign businesses while promoting local ones. It's not like Google would be any less of a target if it was a British company....

Re:Sheesh... (4, Insightful)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401121)

What's the point of weathering a backlash by doing business in china and acquiescing to the government demands of censorship if after all that they just stab you in the back anyway?

Re:Sheesh... (1)

alx5000 (896642) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401137)

Doing business in China at all, I would understand...

Re:Sheesh... (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401401)

... is a bad idea.

There, finished that for you.

Re:Sheesh... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21401317)

posting as anonymous coward for obvious reasons:

Doing business with china regularly, it's just how they operate. to them its normal practice. if it's to their advantage they will do something, if it isn't they won't

Like getting senior execs of a certain, now defunct, british car manufacturer drunk and signing away the company without reading the small print (note they expect foreign companies to follow the rules) *** allegedly ***

Baidu part owned by Google, no? (3, Interesting)

terrencefw (605681) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400765)

This smells fishy, because if I remember correctly, Google owns a significant share of Baidu.

Re:Baidu part owned by Google, no? (3, Informative)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400807)

AFAIK, no outside (foreign) interests can own more than 49% of any Chinese enterprise - that way the Chinese retain the controlling interest of their companies.

Google may have a part of Baidu, but MS had a piece of Apple in the late 90s or 2000s as well (part of a lawsuit agreement IIRC) yet nobody could realisitically accuse MS on whether or not they cared if their OS remain dominant or if they wouldn't mind ceding market to Apple.

Re:Baidu part owned by Google, no? (2, Informative)

thx1138_az (163286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400977)

AFAIK, no outside (foreign) interests can own more than 49% of any Chinese enterprise

That's not technically true... You can own more than 50% of a Chinese company but you, as a foreigner, still can never have a controlling interest. It's funny how that works over there.

Voting and non-voting shares (1, Informative)

Harmonious Botch (921977) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401031)

It works the same here in the US. There are many types of shares: some voting, some non-voting, some that confer a vote only in special circumstances. So a person can own 100 percent of the non-voting shares - which may be the vast majority of the value of the company - and still not be able to vote.

Re:Baidu part owned by Google, no? (3, Interesting)

JanneM (7445) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401023)

AFAIK, no outside (foreign) interests can own more than 49% of any Chinese enterprise - that way the Chinese retain the controlling interest of their companies.

In all fairness, the US does the same both formally (no non-us controlling ownership of any US airline) and informally, as when the US congress stopped the buyout of port operator company. And before anybody starts squealing about "national security", neither has anything to do with it. The port operator is not in control of anything security related, and foreign airlines fly in US airspace all the time but just aren't allowed to go between two US destinations.

Re:Baidu part owned by Google, no? (4, Insightful)

TeraCo (410407) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401427)

Ports, Airlines, etc ARE strategic resource. Imagine if China presses for some trade advantage from the US and is rebuffed. If they had the ability to go close some of your major ports, you'd be feeling the pain really quickly.

Re:Baidu part owned by Google, no? (3, Informative)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401255)

The actual answer is "it depends"...

For a manufacturing company, you as a foreigner can own - and control - 100% of a company. For a technical/service firm, you can own 60%. For a trading company, you can own 40%. So it really depends upon what the type of company is.

China's also opened up so that foreigners can now outright own houses or apartments, something even Mexico doesn't allow...

Re:Baidu part owned by Google, no? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21401299)

Google /had/ a 2.6% stake in Baidu, but it sold that off in mid-2006. So no, Google does not own any part of Baidu.

Re:Baidu part owned by Google, no? (4, Informative)

Alascom (95042) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401403)

Google owned 5% of Bidu at the IPO. They sold their interest in Bidu almost 18 months ago.

Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusion (5, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400783)

China proves that Fascism, not Socialism, works. China is a vindication of everything the post-Socialist Fascist movement thought was in need of change in Socialist ideology to make it work. As a result, China has many of the benefits of capitalism, but has the state control of the means of production that Socialism provides. If it's mostly high-ranking aparatchiks and military officers who own most of the corporations in China, it is only semantically different from the corporation, known as the "Communist State" in China, from owning it in its name.

Of course this would be a surprise to the morons who think that Fascism is just a dirty word you throw at someone you disagree with. Most people forget that Fascism was a movement with a clear-cut platform, that was a true hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism. It is "right-wing" in the sense that it is "to the right of Socialism and Communism." It is, in essence, where the "left and right" meet up on the spectrum. If you look at the Fascists' planks, you will see that they had many left-wing tendencies, such as seizing the war profits of the military industrial complex, heavy taxation of income, and strong government **control** of the means of production through counsels of industry and regulations.

Communism is utopian. It is built on 19th century pseudo-science, and it ought to be no more respectable to be a Communist than to be a Phrenologist.

I am not surprised at China doing this. It make perfect sense from the economic nationalism of Fascist policy.

Re:Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400849)

Well, AFAIK (or as the article states), the chinese government has got nothing to do with this. It's chinese companies that are DNS-poisoning and so on. So your "fascist"-accusations don't seem that appropriate as comments to this article. Maybe to another about China, but not this one.

Re:Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusi (4, Insightful)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400875)

Communism is utopian. It is built on 19th century pseudo-science, and it ought to be no more respectable to be a Communist than to be a Phrenologist.

All economic and political models are NOT true science anyhow. All economic and political models benefit different people in different ways and no math will tell you the "right" way unless you first prove that person X deserves more than person Y (or that there "should" be an imbalance in the first place). Plus, much of economic models depends on consumer psychology, which is also a fuzzy science. At best models may tell you how to maximize something based on assumptions, but those assumptions and the weights on them are usually subjective.
     

Re:Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusi (3, Insightful)

edward2020 (985450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401169)

All economic and political models benefit different people in different ways and no math will tell you the "right" way unless you first prove that person X deserves more than person Y

Huh? Models are used to predict future actions and behavior, at least in so well as human behavior can be modeled. I think you meant "system," not "model." For example, neoliberal economic policies are a type of 'system.' Modernization or dependency theory, however, are models used to make predictions. Though I'll give you that sometimes they become confluent, but the system is what manfests in reality and the model is used to try to, well, model that system so as predictions can be made that might, just might, help policy formation (whatever your idealogy).

So, systems may have parts which are most difinitely subjective. Models, though, are kinda like throwing yarrow sticks in I Ching - they're around to predict behavior. But, even though I want to make a career of poli/sci, I've gotta say that modeling human behavior is sometimes as futile of a predictor as is the I Ching. You know what I'm talking about, we've all read Asimov's Foundation on here... right?

Also, assuming you disagree with my above diatribe, we does it matter that this is subjective. We're dealing with humans here. And when dealing with humans there are a host of value judgements which must be made. That's just the way it is. In criminal and civil law, in deciding what OS you like best, what politician you want running your little burg, etc. These crys of "everything is subjective and therefore of little value" strike me as fatalistic and overly relativistic - at some point you must make a decision, knowing full well that not everyone will agree with you (b/c that's impossible) and that you might be wrong. Really though, I am surprised that we're still around to argue about it though :) How's the saying go, "World War Three will be fought with nuclear weapons, while World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones."

Re:Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusi (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401415)

These crys of "everything is subjective and therefore of little value" strike me as fatalistic and overly relativistic - at some point you must make a decision, knowing full well that not everyone will agree with you

I was mostly addressing the label "pseudo-science". Whether an idea has "value" to us and whether an idea is perfect science may indeed not be entirely related.
   

Re:Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusi (4, Interesting)

tftp (111690) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401381)

Socialism has at least one major fault: it depends on people taking their share of the common wealth, proportional to their contribution. Needless to say, this is impossible on every account. A genius scientist can be entitled to millions of dollars, but he is not married, lives at his lab and needs nothing. A family of janitors with 8 kids needs everything they can get from the society, and they are hardly earning anything from the society for their work.

This is an imbalance that was counter to the proclaimed idea of equality, and it was very real in the USSR. In Stalin's time, for example, a professor could afford a personal chauffeured car, a maid or two, and the best living accommodation - this was when people were paid for their worth. After Stalin things changed: a scientist went hungry (130 R/mo) and an uneducated metal worker at a factory (400-500 R/mo) started buying cars, dachas and tourist trips. This was one of those things that doomed the USSR; I can't imagine a more stupid idea than to herd your best and brightest into the lowest class. Many of them escaped to Israel and the USA as soon as they could; it was simply insulting for them to remain, be paid a pittance, and see their skills wasted on picking up potatoes in the field with locals just sitting around, smoking and crudely joking about it.

Communism goes even beyond that; but enough to say that Communism is based on the concept of unlimited availability of all worldly goods, and on unlimited consumption of those as your needs dictate. We can see Communism practiced on board of Enterprise in Star Trek, for example. Crew members can replicate anything they want and build whatever they like; use Holodecks as much as they want; and they are careful enough to take only what they really need, and not more. This is currently impossible because of many reasons, with unlimited availability of everything as one quite obvious example, and with a need for a "new human" as another concept that has no basis in reality.

Communism (or socialism) works for ants, but humans are possessive animals, with urge to own everything and control everything. You can't build socialism with those humans. But at least the basic capitalism can channel those human urges to the greater good of the society; socialism and communism just pretend that those urges do not exist. Capitalism is simply socialism with a working method of enforcing the rules.

Re:Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusi (2, Insightful)

Mrs. Grundy (680212) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400893)

China proves that Fascism, not Socialism, works

Works for whom? and in what sense?

Re:Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusi (1)

traveller604 (961720) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400915)

Funny that, I'd say it's the US that proves that fascism works LOL

Nice to meet you, Internet! (0, Offtopic)

cheapestbloghost (1190703) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400955)

Dear All,

Gosh, this is terribly exciting. I'm talking to the internet. Hello to all of you! I bet you can't believe it either!
I even have a computer. I didn't really want one but the nice man said it was necessary. He was very, very considerate and insisted on getting me the best. Apparently this is an 'Alienware' because the company makes computers that the most of the internet can read at once. That means, dear readers, that more of you can read what I write!
I really think that two thousand pounds might be a teeny bit much to let me talk on the internet but, as he says, the latest 'blog' software is terribly complicated. Oh, gosh, look at me using technical terms like I am some kind of techno-grandmother! Blog means 'web diary', although that doesn't really make much sense to me at the moment. I'm sure I'll get it later.
Anyway, all the best for now. I'll write more to you later. Don't forget to leave your computer on so that it gets to you!

Yours,

Mildred

This Internet 2.1 blog for user Mildred [sys-eng.co.uk] is powered by The Cheapest Blog Host On The Internet! [sys-eng.co.uk] , the revolutionary web 2.0 metalayer. Get yours now!

blog navigation [sys-eng.co.uk] | previous post [sys-eng.co.uk] | first post [sys-eng.co.uk]

a link to the next post will be in a comment to this post

Re:Nice to meet you, Internet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21401009)

If you aren't joking you're scaring the hell out of me.

Re:Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusi (1)

jotok (728554) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401007)

Yeah, it "works," but that doesn't mean it's especially great.

This is in the same way that a state that simply jails dissidents "works," but I think government should be much less coercive.

Re:Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusi (2, Insightful)

thx1138_az (163286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401049)

You make an intelligent and well stated argument. The meaning of the word Fascism is misunderstood this days. The common unwashed masses have no idea of what Fascism is other than a word you throw around to discredit those you disagree with. I'm sorry to see this modded down as it really makes me question the actual average IQ of the /.er to which I assumed in the past to be well above the mean.

Re:Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusi (4, Insightful)

leathered (780018) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401139)

Mod up please.

'Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.'
'All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. '

Two descriptions of Fascism by Benito Mussolini which apply to today's China perfectly. Though as you rightly point out meaning of the word Fascist has been lost on those who nowadays use it merely as an insult. Those same people are those who usually cannot accept that China is the archetypal Fascist state, in my view even more Fascist than Italy ever was in the 20s.

Re:Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusi (2, Interesting)

dubl-u (51156) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401351)

China proves that Fascism, not Socialism, works.

But for how long? I think Fascism is unstable on the scale of decades as long as trade is free and easy.

Modern economies depend on economic growth. If the elite capture all of that, you end up with terrible social stresses from the inequality, and you limit growth through lack of consumers and limited productivity. If you distribute the gains more widely, lots of people end up with luxuries like education, time to think, and the belief that the elite is no better than they are.

Once you have a comfortable middle class, I think it's hard to avoid ending up with democracy. South Korea could have been called Fascist during their period of military dictatorship, but they've turned out pretty well. I expect China will go the same route as the gerontocracy dies off.

Re:Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusi (4, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401409)

China proves that Fascism, not Socialism, works. China is a vindication of everything the post-Socialist Fascist movement thought was in need of change in Socialist ideology to make it work. As a result, China has many of the benefits of capitalism, but has the state control of the means of production that Socialism provides.

No, it doesn't, by any stretch of the imagination. All China has proved that some organized method of industrialization proves an increase in the standard of living and wealth of a nation. Really, prior to the mid 1980s, China was so screwed up that just about means of exporting goods to the USA would improve them.

Seriously... this sort of myth was really born of the "Hitler Miracle", about, how the Nazi regime supposedly turned the German economy around in the midst of the Great Depression. Sure, Nazi propaganda would have us believe the in the midth of Hitler's German economic juggernaut, but the truth is, if you look at the statistics - EVEN THE BRITISH WERE OUT PRODUCING THE GERMANS. I won't belabor the point of American production, because the Americans had population and other advantages over Germany. Instead, let's look at the British, whom had less population, less natural resources, and still managed to produce more aircraft and more warships than the Germans, ultimately cutting Germany off from the sea and then taking Germany out of the air.

Essentially, all Germany could do was build a bunch of U-Boats that were just facelift improvements from World War I designs (the "modern" U-Boat came way too late to make a difference). Germany built two primary battleships - Bizmarck and Tirpitz. By contrast, the British built 5 battleships of the KGV class, more than a few aircraft carriers, and plenty of not only fighters, but also four engine heavy bombers. Germany could never build 4 engine bombers in number, becuase despite having an entire continent at her disposal, the Germans always had engine shortages...

And, why was that?

It's because fascism is a crooked and corrupt institution, and crooked institutions are not efficient. Tales of Nazi looting of other countries abound, but there was massive disorganization, massive crime... really, just imagine a bunch of thugs in a command economy, telling corporate bosses what to produce for war armaments... eventually, the whole thing would collapse... as indeed, it would have, under its own weight, had not the weight of a few million Allied soldiers and thousands of tons of Allied bombs not helped it along.

And that's ultimately what's going to happen with China. Already, rumours abound about problems in the Chinese banking sector, there's inflation being swept under the rug, and there's all sorts of inefficiencies creeping in that are just swept under the rug.

Bottom line is, fascist regimes always produce good economic results, only because we believe them when they tell us that we do. At some point, freedom really -does- matter, and that will catch up to China.

Re:Chinese "capitalism" is still largely an illusi (3, Informative)

br00tus (528477) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401411)

I agree China is not socialist. The vast majority of communists that still exist in the world do not consider it so. They date it somewhere between Mao making nice with Nixon and Deng Xiaoping coming to power. Remember that Deng Xiaoping was considered to be one of the biggest villains during the Cultural Revolution.

Karl Marx founded communism on materialist principles, not utopian ones. It doesn't mean all of his theories are correct, but they are not utopian. In fact he founded his school of thought in response to utopian socialist/communist ideologies of the time. I don't know how rational our system is with the president talking about God all the time and appealing to his base with his supposdely shared belief that some Jew 2000 years ago had magic powers.

Marxism is scientific insofar as it is consciously built on materialist, scientific notions. It is not scientific insofar as when it is incorrect. I would say even most educated Americans I know have no arguments against Marxian thought since they know nothing of it. They say "People will not act a certain way because human nature is..." or something like that which is never a scientific, rational argument. There are strong arguments against Marxian thought, but they are more along the lines of "Marx's economic system does not translate values to prices correctly". But most Americans, even educated ones, know too little about Marxism to make arguments against them.

Also, while Marx's socialism involves a proletariat-directed taking over of the economy by the state, there are other forms of socialism, like the anarcho-syndicalists who think economic decisions should be made by workers at their place of employment. Or people who advocate workers councils and so on. Many on the left question whether the USSR was what Marx intended, and Lenin himself talked about pulling away from socialism during the New Economic Policy. Only to Americans does socialism mean big government versus small government, in Europe it means who will control the "means of production".

fsck china (3, Funny)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400789)

i think the USA should pull the plug on them, (physically remove their intertubes from connecting to the US intertubes)...

I for one, am confused! (1)

The Anarchist Avenge (1004563) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400919)

How could we 'fsck /mnt/zh/' if we pulled the plug?

nohup (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401065)

Start the fsck with nohup first.

Re:fsck china (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21401017)

I'd go for that. Of the tens of thousands of port scans daily on my broadband provider's network, 85 percent are from China. Can't help but think that stopping this this traffic would improve bandwidth for those that are paying for the network. It would be nice to filter them at a high-level node.

Re:fsck china (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401247)

They tried doing that in Iraq at the beginning of the invasion.

Unfortunately their own redundant technology backfired on them and they learnt the hard way that its impossible to disconnect the internet from a country. :)
Traffic re-routes its self pretty damn quickly.

Re:fsck china (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21401267)

I remember when the whole intitle:"index.of" search command was totally poisoned by *.cn domains and you could not find shit for 100 pages of google results because of these asswipes

I also remember a Wordpress blog's akismet spam filter catching 1000s of *.cn domains for the most hideous and disgusting porn

So yeah, get them off the intertubes (or at least disconnect domain blocks) cause they have nothing but bad intentions and I cannot figure out what it is for or what it is about?

Even if they take over the world tomorrow or become dominant in the world I will have not much more respect for their bullshit than at present and I see them as pathetic neurotic retards who are thinking pissing contests prove something, it doesn't and the world just fucking hate you more

So there...

Already researched in 2002 ... (4, Informative)

foobsr (693224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400801)

"Replacement of Google with Alternative Search Systems in China — Documentation and Screen Shots"
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/google-replacements/ [harvard.edu]
Last Updated: September 24, 2002

On this basis: "Google censors itself for China" — http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm [bbc.co.uk] — Wednesday, 25 January 2006

Define ethics and business ethics within the context of a multi-billion dollar market. Do not be shy!

CC.

Re:Already researched in 2002 ... (1)

fmobus (831767) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400905)

Just playing devil's advocate here, but... are screenshots valid proof? Not only the could have been doctored, but in this case it would not even require Photoshop-like tools. Just go to "offending" site, focus on the location bar, type the address and unfocus (do not press enter). Voilá, instant screenshot of DNS trickery.

Re:Already researched in 2002 ... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400953)

Voilá, instant screenshot of DNS trickery.

Wonder if you could use tor to prove/disprove this? I've seen tor exit nodes in China, but if they are doing this via DNS poisoning and not ip-redirection I'm not sure if that would help you. How does tor handle DNS requests? Do they exit at the same node as your connection or at random ones?

Re:Already researched in 2002 ... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401053)

are screenshots valid proof?

No, of course not (and it would be too much work for the purpose to assess validity from the internet, if at all possible). But at least I had the impression that this source is more credible than '''commiepod.org''' (unranked) from a 3contributionstrong china-hating submitter.

CC.

Re:Already researched in 2002 ... (1)

Nuwdle (1190721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400985)

China's online search market was worth RMB811.7 million($108.5 million) in the third quarter, up 95.2% from a year earlier

I get your point, but we're talking under a half billion this year (under a 1/4 billion last year), not billions. That's still large enough to blur the lines of ethics, but does reduce your figure quite a bit. And I doubt the Google guys will sell out their own country which is a much larger cash cow. I guess you could say that it puts the blur back in to focus.

To put it into perspective, Amazon.com does that much revenue in 15-20 days...

$10.7 billion/12 months = $890 million per month / 2 = $445 million in about 15 days

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com [wikipedia.org]

Re:Already researched in 2002 ... (1)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401147)

Yeah but look how much it rose by from last year. Anyone who gets in on it early and establishes a dominant market share will be golden in a few years.

quite. (5, Informative)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400821)

No surprise.

I used to work in China quite alot and found the only way I could get decent Internet access and get things done was to VPN back to the UK office and then surf from their gateway - the slight delay was quite alot better then the local service.

I got used to shitty performance, websites suddenly dying for no reason, 30 second delays on some sites and others almost instant.

As with most things Chinese, we may see this at dodgy behavior - to them it is a normal business practice. As I once stated on a thread about Chinese knockoffs the problem is not to "stop them doing it" but is rather "to make them understand they are doing something wrong in the first place".

Re:quite. (1)

josephdrivein (924831) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400903)

As I once stated on a thread about Chinese knockoffs the problem is not to "stop them doing it" but is rather "to make them understand they are doing something wrong in the first place".
Not everyone has your sense of ethics. They may not stop doing something wrong if they find it useful.
Isn't the widespread lack of ethics one of the main reasons why we have laws?

Re:quite. (1)

o'reor (581921) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401291)

Isn't the widespread lack of ethics one of the main reasons why we have laws?
Yes, but passing international laws or agreeing on international ethical practices is quite another matter. One civilization's set of ethics may be quite different from another's, hence different laws. In the Chinese view, according to their set of ethics, they are not doing anything wrong.


And this is why the current trend towards more IP laws in the Western World is so wrongheaded in the first place, as if the 5 billion people in the rest of the world was going to agree with their views...

Re:quite. (1)

stormguard2099 (1177733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401303)

I'd go so far as to say almost everyone has ethics. Its those discrepencies in between those ethics where the problems come from.

Re:quite. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21401005)

I got used to shitty performance, websites suddenly dying for no reason, 30 second delays on some sites and others almost instant.

They use Comcast in China, too?!

Re:quite. (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401233)

It's interesting. Based on your analysis of the Chinese character, it sounds like your average Chinese is willing to step over the bodies of his comrades, so to speak, it will allow him to get ahead. "Competition" that damages the competitors is seen as being just as legitimate as competition that advances one's own position. I wonder -- is this extreme, cutthroat attitude toward personal advancement the result of a society that enforces equality for everyone? Not that this "equality" is really true, mind you -- but if there's a good chance that some government official might come along and take away what you've worked for, the average businessman might start to learn from that example and act accordingly.

Re:quite. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21401445)

As with most things Chinese, we may see this at dodgy behavior - to them it is a normal business practice. As I once stated on a thread about Chinese knockoffs the problem is not to "stop them doing it" but is rather "to make them understand they are doing something wrong in the first place".

The same could be said about a certain monopolistic, megalomaniacal US software company.

Don't Knock China (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400873)

Chinese children work all day to put lead in our children's toys.

Don't mess with a good thing.

its propoganda as you can tell from.... (0, Troll)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400941)

...the bad English of the article.

South Africa (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400945)

I know some people in South Africa had this problem when going to yahoo.com they were redirected to Baidu. http://mybroadband.co.za/news/General/1678.html [mybroadband.co.za]

Happens in Thailand too.. (0, Offtopic)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400967)

First Thailand banned YouTube [slashdot.org] , then two weeks later Siam Tube [siamtube.com] is launched.

One case is not a "habit" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21400969)

I've only ever heard accusations of this stuff with Baidu, so the article subject talking about "in the habit" is misleading, because it made me think this was for other companies too.

They do worse things (3, Insightful)

wikinerd (809585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21400981)

They actually do worse things, like torturing Tibetan nuns, and you worry whether you can access your favourite search engine in China?

Re:They do worse things (5, Funny)

Gigiya (1022729) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401045)

Yes.

Re:They do worse things (1, Offtopic)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401083)

They actually do worse things, like torturing Tibetan nuns, and you worry whether you can access your favourite search engine in China?

And the US tortures terror suspects before they are proven guilty in a court of law.
     

Re:They do worse things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21401133)

oh please, how can you even compare the US to the Chinese...

I'm in England and would be described as Anti-American but even I can see how stupid your comment is.

Re:They do worse things (5, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401441)

oh please, how can you even compare the US to the Chinese...

      Native Americans? African Americans?

      Every empire has to crush a few people to establish itself. Enough of the double standards already.

Re:They do worse things (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401379)

I see you got your -1 Offtopic mod, and deservedly so.

The US is certainly no utopian Land of the Free and the current administration has a lot to answer for, but comparing them to China is, well, grossly misguided at best.

Re:They do worse things (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401461)

I see you got your -1 Offtopic mod, and deservedly so.

Well, I disagree. There are a lot of issues that affect who we trade with and why. This is one of them.

The US is certainly no utopian Land of the Free and the current administration has a lot to answer for, but comparing them to China is, well, grossly misguided at best.

But if we complain to them or the UN, they'll just counter and complain about our own torture. We need to get our own house in order before we can start griping to others about human rights. It comes across as being hypocritical.
   

Re:They do worse things (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401425)

And the US tortures terror suspects before they are proven guilty in a court of law.

      And holds them indefinitely on a military base in a third country, not exactly as prisoners of war, and not exactly as criminals. In fact, they might go home when the war ends. When is the war going to end, exactly? Remind me again what the goals were... because the Geneva convention clearly states that when you go to war you need to have concrete political goals for ending the war, and have to strive to end the war as soon as possible.

      And the US raised a HUGE stink over their soldiers who were held in prison camps in Vietnam. Sigh. The people in Guantanamo have families, had lives before the fighting began. Either shoot them, or let them go already. But holding them like this only increases the hate from brothers, uncles and children.

Re:They do worse things (4, Insightful)

theodicey (662941) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401261)

Without access to the uncensored real Internet, how exactly do you think Chinese people will find out about the atrocities committed by their government in their name?

Re:They do worse things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21401405)

That's way beyond the grasp of your average slashdot browsing fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came [wikipedia.org] ...

Re:They do worse things (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21401419)

You seem willing to spend money on computers & 'net connections, instead of giving the money you used for that to starving people. A classic case of pot, kettle, black.

That's not an unfair comparison - you will not get anywhere by saying (essentially) "do as I imply, not as I actually do".

Re:They do worse things (0, Redundant)

Draek (916851) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401449)

and you know of the torture how, exactly?

we have to worry about China's attempts to manipulate the internet, not because we have to protect the profits of Google et al, but because even worse attrocities may take place if they know that the word won't get out.

Re:They do worse things (0, Redundant)

noidentity (188756) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401467)

Maybe one's favorite search engine is one that allows one to even find stories about things like Tibetan nun torture. You think unfettered Internet access in China is just a novelty with no serious purpose?

I didn't notice any problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21401001)

When I was in China this august I used internet cafes a lot. I really didn't notice any slowdowns. I was able to check Fark, Slashdot, Digg and the stories with no problems.

Then again, I wasn't really paying that much attention to how fast the pages loaded, only whether or not they did. I was worried about blocked pages.

My stuff got copied (4, Informative)

harmonica (29841) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401011)

Someone has copied a number of pages from my site. A link to my original URL was included, though. When I finally found a mail address, the person replying was apologetic and claimed to only have done it because my pages were so slow to access from China. He/She removed the page, but there were copies later of other pages. I gave up asking for removal -- it cost me a lot of time just finding the mail address in that case. Everything is in Chinese. It's a bit annoying, but there's not much I think I can do and I don't think anyone's trying to steal from me.

Re:My stuff got copied (0, Troll)

3seas (184403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401193)

Gee you must have some really good stuff as you have also said Wikipedia copied some of your site.

how about a link to all the wonderful stuff of yours?

Re:My stuff got copied (1)

wdr1 (31310) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401435)

Um, welcome to the Internet?

By no means is this is a China-only issue. It happens all the time in Western countries. If you're complaint is they're harder to deal with because they speak Chinese, that's mildly ridiculous.

-Bill

Guess where they got this idea ! (-1, Offtopic)

middlemen (765373) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401037)

They must have got this idea from Microsoft ! After all, Microsoft is the king of copy cats ;)

Welcome to the electronic world (1)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401039)

The most important thing about the electronic world is that, unlike the real world, there are very little laws or conventions. Western powers have been too busy taking bungs from music cartels for legislation on downloading mp3s to actually have time to make any real difference.

Were the Chinese up to no good? Possibly - but who can blame them - the internet is a incredibly easy place to play dirty tricks and have absolutely no repercussions. In the world of international dirty tricks there is very little that you could normally do to cause trouble that didn't involve significant risks on the world stage (espionage, corporate theft, political interference). The internet is one vast playground which is completely risk free. Do what you like, and if anyone complains just say it wasn't us. The Russians did it a couple of months ago against Estonia.

The people we elect to represent us and our interests should have been working to create a world wide communication network that could not be corrupted or used against us, not taking dirty money to allow corporations to attempt to paint a mum who uploaded a short clip of her son dancing to a song as being a shoplifting thief.

And yet.. (1)

Brian Lewis (1011579) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401041)

We (as a nation) still buy "Made in China" crap and help support their economy.

I thought we (the US) weren't friends with "Commies."

sigh.

Re:And yet.. (1, Interesting)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401103)

We as a world full of people don't buy "Made in China" crap. Companies buy it and leave us no choice but to buy from them.

When the choice is to have a product or to not have a product, that doesn't count as a choice.

Re:And yet.. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401331)

We as a world full of people don't buy "Made in China" crap. Companies buy it and leave us no choice but to buy from them.

When the choice is to have a product or to not have a product, that doesn't count as a choice.


      We companies have no choice but to sell you "Made in China" crap, because you consumers prefer to buy the cheapest products. It's called efficiency. This is what the free market always wants to head for, ever since Adam Smith noticed that at the end of a market day, all the products were sold.

      At the moment, China is simply more efficient at manufacturing this stuff.

      How come you don't want to go back to the $5000 personal computer IBM was trying to sell you 20 years ago? Oh, you prefer the Chinese $800 computer that does everything the $5000 machine does? Then you blame the companies? Blame the US worker, who demands his union and his sick days and his stress leave and his health insurance and dental, and $40k a year salary and his car and his big screen TV, etc, and is not willing to work for a bowl of rice a day. Blame yourself.

Re:And yet.. (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401263)

We (as a nation) still buy "Made in China" crap and help support their economy.

      You really don't understand globalization, do you?

      The Made in China "crap" is:

a) probably made by a US owned Chinese company or a Chinese company that bought technology/equipment from US firms, or licensed from a US company that gets a cut of the profits.
b) made for a lot less than any other country could ever DREAM of to produce it

      The best bit is - China is only STARTING to become industrialized. They (along with India) have the potential to dominate the entire world economically. Sure, as an American you can "boycott" China. But Europe won't. Russian won't. The third world (which is starving for cheaper goods) won't. The only thing you will be doing is digging your own grave.

      Globalization brings countries together. How can you go to war with a country that sells you the products you need, and buys the technology you produce, and imports raw materials from you, and exports engineers to you, etc etc etc.

      Oh wait, war is about politics, and politicians are rarely rational. Sure, go ahead and call for a boycott then. Pardon me if I snicker when you shoot yourself in the foot.

      Oh, and I'm Canadian, not Chinese. Not a drop of oriental blood.

Donald Trump says China rigs the rules (5, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401067)

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/9/230755.shtml?s=icp [newsmax.com]

Excerpt:

America's middle-class was shrinking as the country lost its manufacturing base and jobs to inexpensive imports, Trump said in an interview at his Manhattan office, pointing especially to China.

"If you want to open a business in China, it is virtually impossible," Trump said. "And yet, if China wants to come here and do something, there is no problem whatsoever."...

"China is doing a major number on the United States," Trump said. "If we had politicians that knew what they were doing, they would stop that so fast that your head would spin."

Re:Donald Trump says China rigs the rules (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401253)

"If you want to open a business in China, it is virtually impossible," Trump said. "And yet, if China wants to come here and do something, there is no problem whatsoever."...
I'm a U.S. citizen and I own a business in China. Many successful Chinese Web companies are indeed founded by Chinese Americans and/or funded by U.S. venture capitalists -- like baidu.com, sina.com, alibaba.com.

Of course, you do need connections to government officials or others to be of any significance. but that can be solved by money because all Chinese officials like to (a) diversify their portfolio outside of China before they got caught up and executed for taking bribery; (b) send their children oversea.

Re:Donald Trump says China rigs the rules (1)

dibblda (882455) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401349)

Chinese Americans, exactly. Wonder what happens if you are Caucasian in general? I'm not holding my breath......

Re:Donald Trump says China rigs the rules (3, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401355)

They pretty much have the rest of the world by the balls and they know it. It's amazing some of the stuff they get away with because they know exactly how to manipulate the rest of the world. The biggest thing they manage to do is to act both like a superpower and a developing nation that needs protection. They don't want to open up a lot of sectors of their economy to foreign competition, so they claim they are a developing economy and get various WTO/UN/other world body protections, however when it suits them they act like a super power and throw their weight around to get access to natural resources(oil in Africa being a prime example).

To be fair, both the US and EU are guilty of this to some degree, but nowhere near what China does. China has shown that it wants to be a superpower, so it needs to take all the responsibilities of one as well as reaping the rewards. However, they won't and nobody will make them because they have the world by the balls. They know how to get western countries to do what they want and will continue to act like they have been.

Re:Donald Trump says China rigs the rules (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401361)

One way you can help:

Next time you're out shopping, look for labels that say "MADE IN CHINA". That way you'll know what not to buy.

Seriously, these guys are killing our economy. Local manufacturers can't compete with the cheap crap coming from China these days, so much so that a lot of them are actually packing up and moving their operations over there. Unfortunately self-centric consumers will always go for the lower-priced item if of comparable quality.

I don't understand (5, Funny)

shbazjinkens (776313) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401131)

How come there's no mention of this on slashdot.cn?

Firsthand experience? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401143)

I'm sure all those with firsthand experience are busy complaining about it right now, on slashdot.cn.

Re:Firsthand experience? (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401227)

If you go top slashdot.cn you end up at digibuzz.com which seems to be a site similar to slashdot in content.

I wonder if this would qualify as a bad faith domain name registration under WIPO rules.

THIS IS CHINA! (0, Troll)

OldHawk777 (19923) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401167)

When in China, China will do as you do; So, tough-shit fools, if local law is not fully understood ....

China is a sovereign state, ruled by a communist-oligarchy, and does not require permission from corporatist or deist (as in the US/EU...) to do what China (at least the communist-oligarchy) deems best for China (at least the communist-oligarchy).

Also, for those that do not understand China ... start with the "Art of War, Sun Tzu" (http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.1b.txt), remember words are literal and speculative (what if~s) in all cultures, and only fools/idiots hear their own limited meaning.

China is winning and US, EU ... are losing, but it does not mean WW0011, nukes, chem or bio.

For China, Saudi, faux-prophet fanatics ... asymmetric warfare is being used like the old 20th century cold-war proxy-skirmish/conflicts.

Anyway, I guess, anyone-anywhere with a Flaming Bush as leader ...well... a whoops (WW3~nuke, ~chem, ~bio ~...) could might/maybe happen. However, we should never blame the irresponsible drunk-driver for murder-1/2 ... someone sold the car, served the drink, issued the license, did not take the keys, let the repeat offender off with a stern scolding, recommended rehab until it works, then the a USA supreme court elected the S&M sycophant drunk POTUS.

Funny is as funny does ... got any kids ... tough-shit ... their future does not look very promising unless they emigrate to China, Canada, Norway ....

!HAVEFUN!

Re:THIS IS CHINA! (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401237)

You left out "you Capitalist running dogs!"

          Brett

Re:THIS IS CHINA! (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401285)

got any kids ... tough-shit ... their future does not look very promising unless they emigrate to China

We heard that before from Japan in the '80s, the Soviets in the '60s, the Nazis in the 40's and so on. The problem is that centrally managed economies can grow fast for a while, but then they hit a wall because of the market inefficiencies that these practices inevitably introduce.

First-hand experiences (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21401177)

This is a fairly serious accusation; anyone else have first-hand experiences that would back this up?
Yes. Yes I do.

Poisoning DNS (2, Funny)

monopole (44023) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401219)

I didn't know DNS was susceptible to lead. Maybe they're using GHB.

I think the words you're looking for are (1)

drDugan (219551) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401239)

"that's just business"

True! True! (2, Interesting)

Freelife (1190827) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401363)

This is unquestionable true. We see it everywhere in China. Tor saved our life!

probs? (1)

SaDwinter (1164915) | more than 6 years ago | (#21401421)

Who needs them, when you can go to http://www.baidu.com/ [baidu.com] and look for "www.google.com", see the results... Try clicking on the google link.
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>