Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Committed to Chinese Business

Posted by Zonk on Fri Jun 09, 2006 11:46 AM
from the going-the-long-haul dept.
Businesses Google The Internet Government Politics
Snowgen writes "Despite this week's earlier story that hinted Google may consider pulling out of China over the topic of censorship, Reuters is now quoting Sergey Brin as saying that 'Google Inc. is committed to doing business in China despite criticism the company has faced for abiding by Chinese government censorship restrictions.'" More from the article: "Brin told a small group of invited journalists: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to do something different. Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there ... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now'."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Google Admits Compromising Principles in China 459 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Google Committed to Chinese Business 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Typo in headline (Score:5, Insightful)

    by winkydink (650484) * <sv.dude@gmail.com> on Friday June 09 2006, @11:47AM (#15503306) Homepage Journal
    It should read "Google committed to Chinese Revenue"
    • Google committed to share price. As somebody who rode a measly $5k up to $30k with Google shares, I happily have now stepped off the bandwagon of shareholders. The stock is overvalued. Google spreadhseet has showed that while AJAX Web apps have many neat features, they are not ready to take the place of OpenOffice.


      What they think will gain from being in China will get offset by the corruption that will infiltrate the company. Pretty soon, the Chinese will want Google's research to start occuring over th
      • In this, China is much like WalMart. Sure, you get the access to the world's largest middle-class, but, in return, the Chinese have you on a leash. Any time you do something internally that the Chinese dislike, they can tug the leash by threatening to revoke access to their market.

        The same principle applies to WalMart. By getting access to WalMart you get access to the largest distribution system in the world. Initially, this is a huge windfall for your company. However, later on you see that you've giv

      • Re:Typo in headline (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Irish_Samurai (224931) on Friday June 09 2006, @12:24PM (#15503628)
        No. Google does not have a legal obligation to make money for it's shareholders.

        Google has a legal obligation to behave in a manner dictated to it by the voting shareholders. While this is usually a directive to make money, it could be other things. It just so happens that Page and Brin have 66.2 percent of the voting power. [eweek.com] So they can actually do whatever they want to do. THEY are the final word on China or not, so you can point the finger directly at them.
  • Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there ... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now'.

    He then added "I mean, what good are principles anyway? They don't make you any money. Keeping your word and following your beliefs, well, it's highly overrated.

    • This is a race to the bottom. I think the ambivelence that Google displays is a reasonable response to a complicated issue. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to say you will cooperate with someone who is doing something that you dislike, because not cooperating is not going to stop them, and at least if you're the one cooperating, you know what's going on, and you can shape the process.

      • I think the ambivelence that Google displays is a reasonable response to a complicated issue.

        I'll disagree. I don't see it as complicated at all.

        Which do you value more?
        #1. Money
        #2. Your claimed morals and ethics?

        I don't think it's an unreasonable position to say you will cooperate with someone who is doing something that you dislike, because not cooperating is not going to stop them, and at least if you're the one cooperating, you know what's going on, and you can shape the process.

        That is based upon t

    • If you were in China would you rather have a censored google or no google at all? Not living in China you could probably say no google, but I'm sure if you didn't have it, you would take the opposite opinion. You'd also probably thing it was evil of google to abandon your country. As a search company, their job is to make as much content accessibly to as many people as possible. Removing a major part of the population would be much worse than just removing some of the content.

      • As a search company, their job is to make as much content accessibly to as many people as possible. Removing a major part of the population would be much worse than just removing some of the content.

        The government removes people. Google removes content. Google is complying with the wishes of the government, thus lending them power, thus helping them remove people. The american consumer, by buying Chinese products, is helping pay Chinese taxes, thus helping the government kill people. But, the American p

      • Wow. You are really off the mark.

        If you were in China would you rather have a censored google or no google at all? Not living in China you could probably say no google, but I'm sure if you didn't have it, you would take the opposite opinion

        This stance is so tired. Google is doing no good in China. Google doesn't have the ability to change a thing in China. Good search results (subjective) do not feed starving peoples, unseat oppresive leaders, or aid in revolts and protests. Especially if these results are
          • Yay for your choice of search engines.

            Search results are subjective. Because you think Google is great doesn't mean jack. Becuase you would still use google's search if it became censored here in America doesn't mean jack. Your opinions are not fulcrums of logical arguments. Your only standing argument is boils down to "I like Google."

            No, I wouldn't prefer a crippled anything to the real deal.

            Yes, a censored search engine is worthless.
            • While I disagree with GP's opinion, you're attacking a straw man. No one asked if you'd prefer a censored Google to a non-censored Google. He asked if you'd prefer a censored Google or no Google at all.

              Yes, a censored search engine is worthless.

              So every search engine in existence is worthless? I disagree. The degree of censorship is certainly inversely proportional to the actual value to a person searching, but unless the censorship involves removing every single possible search result, it doesn't r
    • as long as the chinese are commited to censorship i'm glad there are open source projects out there to to help protect people from that kind of ruthless censorship.

      As long as sites like the sourceforge are around, people will be able to communicate freely. Google is a busisness, they need to have project that make money, but to be honest if the chinese were so determined to end freedom of speech I'd be 100% behind google finding other ventures to make money at.

      I have spent the last 12 years of my life belie

    • He then added "I mean, what good are principles anyway? They don't make you any money. Keeping your word and following your beliefs, well, it's highly overrated.

      And somewhere in Redmond, WA, someone is cackling...

  • Continuation (Score:3, Funny)

    by Kesch (943326) on Friday June 09 2006, @11:50AM (#15503325)
    "Brin told a small group of invited journalists: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to do something different. Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there ... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now'."

    The article goes on to say:

    Brin said these words as a group of stockholders stood behind him holding a shotgun and several cattle prods
    • Brin said these words as a group of stockholders stood behind him holding a shotgun and several cattle prods

      All while dancing, nubile imperial concubines and heavy sacks of pristine tea leaves and silk dangled seductively directly in front of the podium.
  • As the Telcos got what they wanted to get to do with internet, i suspect that almost all of us will be vying for the freedom and equal opportunity of the internet in china.

    Google should do wise to stay in china, as the thing closest to internet as we know it will only exist in china after some 6-12 months, thanks to 'Telecommunications OPPORTUNITY' act.

    What "opportunity" this is i wonder ... Opportunity to f.ck up the biggest technological&international revolutiuon in the history of the world ?

  • Yea sure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bwd (936324) on Friday June 09 2006, @11:51AM (#15503340) Homepage
    They are making it sound like they are taking some kind of stand in China. That is the impression I'm getting out of their comments. That is all BS. They're making the decision to not get left out of the China market even if that means compromising every principle they have. They are commited to making money in China, not free speech.
  • Oh ya, It's money talks bullsh!t walks.

  • Question for Brin (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2006, @11:53AM (#15503357)
    I have just one question for Brin: If censoring words like "democracy" to the people of the world's largest country, because you were asked to by its authoritarian government, isn't an "evil" thing for a company in the information-distribution business to do, then what exactly would qualify as "evil", if anything?

  • Famous Last Words (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Brin: Where is my company's motto? Is she safe? Is she all right?
    China: It seems that in your anger, you killed her.
    Brin: I... I couldn't have. She was alive. I felt her. Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!

  • Why is everyone amazed? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mikesd81 (518581) <mikesd1&verizon,net> on Friday June 09 2006, @11:58AM (#15503401) Homepage
    Google is above all a business. A business is to make money. They stood for American rights when the gov't wanted documents. It seems everyone is forgetting this when the Google China stories creep up. Consider: If you own a business and you open an office in China and you want to make money....will you defy the Chinese gov't? Or will you conform to their laws and policies?
    • So in other words, you're saying they won't compromise their beliefs when there is very little threat of losing money, but they will compromise their beliefs if the chances to lose out on revenue is very high.

      The problem with this is that this isn't a "good" principle to live by, it is in fact evil and unethical, but since it seems to be the norm in this day and age, it's understandable to see why some would deem this practice as "ok".
      • I'm saying that business is business. They don't just have the belief of "do no evil". They also have the belief to profit. Plus, if they go against China, then how is that "do no evil" if their breaking China's law? I don't agree with China's laws, or all the laws of America for that matter, but until the laws are changed, if you want to do business in those countries then follow the law. It's no different than stores requiring shoes and a shirt. So, would you be upset if they didn't serve you becaus
    • Google seems to be playing both sides of the fence here. I wouldn't be surprised if the US Government via Google started inserting crapaganda into China. It would be a plus for Google to get a foot in the door and get Chinese revenue since the market is huge, it would also be a plus for the US government to get in via Google (as the US always seems to do - getting a foot in the door), to unload crapaganda contrary to Chinese laws. Wouldn't be the first time. What you see here (Google in China) is nothing mo
  • Previous poster mentioned to me that "Don't be evil" and "Making the world a better place" are on their IPO prospectus. One can argue they are currently doing the opposite, hence cheating on share-holders. If fundamental principles are compromised, the end cannot justify the means.

  • Don't hate (Score:3, Insightful)

    by inexia (977449) on Friday June 09 2006, @12:02PM (#15503426)
    The first rule of Google - China is that you do not talk about Google - China
  • I don't think Brin has the foresight to think this, but I say, go for it. All the communication and business is going to destroy Chinese control and censorship in a few years anyway. PRofit-driven though they are, they're inadvertantly likely going to destroy censorship. On the other hand, they could be establishing a trend of censorship and further engraining it. But I doubt it.
  • The Chinese are upset that Google continues to do business with the democratic west.

  • Plain and Simple (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WED Fan (911325) <<ten.liamhsart> <ta> <egihaka>> on Friday June 09 2006, @12:05PM (#15503458) Homepage Journal
    Google is now evil. Censorship, providing access to the secret police so they can find the dissidents, and etc. is as much as breaking their vow of "Don't be evil" as a doctor taking the vow, "First, do no harm," and then providing genocidal services. It is as bad as Dow Chemical providing the means of extermination. But, Google goes in with eyes WIDE OPEN and experience knowing this is what they are doing.

  • Everyone Shames Google... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZSpade (812879) on Friday June 09 2006, @12:10PM (#15503498) Homepage
    But they forget who the real scourge is here. Google is no influence over policy in China, nor could it provide any uncensored searches without risking the lives of those who live there. The Chinese government is to blame here, and no matter how much we badmouth google for abiding by that countries LAWS, it will not change things. Today the people of China are opressed, Tomorrow they will be opressed, and nothing is going to change that. Google would only be depriving the Chinese of a tool by pulling out, not their rights to an uncensored world... no you can thank China for that.
    • What absolutely amazes me is that in EVERY SINGLE Google China discussion, no one says a dicky bird about MSN China, or Yahoo China, or all these other fucking search engines that have Chinese sites. Why is Google being singled out? because of their "do no evil" policy? Sorry, but I'd consider it more evil to deprive China of Google, even if it is censored.

      Which would you prefer, a censored Wikipedia or no Wikipedia? I'd take censored. Something is better than nothing.

  • It is not Googles responsibility to change China (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bunions (970377) on Friday June 09 2006, @12:10PM (#15503499)
    And I think it's preposterous to ask them to hew to some sort of Holier-Than-Thou philosophy while the rest of the world rushes to do business with China.
  • Google was a kind of hero. Then they started coming out with a bunch of crap I didn't want to see on computers like MSIE toobars and such. As a Linux user, I tried to ignore it. The stuff exists for Linux too but it's quite possible to ignore it as nothing I install comes with a google add-on leaving me with 100% control over what I install and what I don't.

    Then Google's grey area in its dealings with China... then their foreshadowing of some sort of 'decision' on the matter, and now a statement stating
  • A few points.

    First, as has been rightly pointed out in previous debates on this subject, Google is a publicly-traded American corporation. This means it is under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders. Pulling out of the world's largest market, even on a matter of principle, is a poor business judgment decision that would likely result in Google getting sued by the stockholders down the line. If there is "evil" here, U.S. corporate law is as much to blame as anyone.

    Second, the Chinese government does not care about the First Amendment. Laudable though it might seem to take a stand and protest Chinese censorship by refusing their business, the Chinese brass would likely respond with the Mandarin equivalent of "Don't let the door hit you on the way out!" The censorship would continue as before, with only Yahoo and MS raking in huge profits for Chinese search traffic (Yahoo having been notably more cooperative with the People's Republic in quashing dissenting voices than Google ever was).

    If Google is really concerned about the democratic privileges of the Chinese people (which incidentally, they don't enjoy--however much Americans may find censorship to be reprehensible, China is a different country, and free speech hasn't been established there), sticking around is one of the best things they could do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Google has always been available in China--as Google.com. Google.cn just makes it more language- and user-friendly for the Chinese consumer. Additionally, every time the Chinese engine returns censored results, isn't there a note to the effect that the document has been redacted? This would seem, in my mind, to contribute to a heightened public awareness in China as to just how pervasive the censorship regime is. This will in turn spawn more, not less, dissent, tending more towards democratic reform in the long term.

    What do the people of China really gain if Google shuts down? Even redacted information, if freely available, is far better than none if we want to motivate reform. If Google pulled out, it would lose business, subject itself to legal liability, and change nothing in China in the long term. By staying, it allows the Chinese one more tool (however controlled) for obtaining and disseminating information. No barrier is as porous as one that tries to limit the flow of information; the Great Firewall can't last forever. Maybe Google can help pull it down--but not if they leave.
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but Google has always been available in China--as Google.com. Google.cn just makes it more language- and user-friendly for the Chinese consumer.

      You are correct. Although the creation of google.cn was not only for language barrier breaking purposes. Thanks to the great firewall of China, google.com was often incredebly slow or inaccesible most of the time. Plus it was still censored, but in ways google couldn't control or even determine.

    • First, as has been rightly pointed out in previous debates on this subject, Google is a publicly-traded American corporation. This means it is under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders.

      No. Google is obligated by law to behave in a manner dictated to it by its voting shareholders. While this most often is "make money" it doesn't have to be so. Since Sergey and Larry own 66.2% of the voting stock, they can do whatever they feel like, without b

    • > Google is a publicly-traded American corporation. This means it is under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders.

      Not so. It is obliged to act in the interest of its shareholders, but 1) the law leave a lot of wiggle room when interpreting the common interest of the shareholders and 2) I'm sure there are shareholders that think 'do no evil' is a standard that should be upheld.

      > with only Yahoo and MS raking in huge profits for Chinese sea
    • First, as has been rightly pointed out in previous debates on this subject[Google is]...under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders.
      As others have pointed out, they are under the stockholder wishes. Few public companies have a block which controls more than %50 of the votes, but the Google founders still do.

      I believe that they are right to deal with China. However, I am also happy that they are getting some hell for it, as the debate is valuable.

    • Additionally, every time the Chinese engine returns censored results, isn't there a note to the effect that the document has been redacted? This would seem, in my mind, to contribute to a heightened public awareness in China as to just how pervasive the censorship regime is. This will in turn spawn more, not less, dissent, tending more towards democratic reform in the long term.

      And on the other side, Google seems to be doing a very good job in getting people outside China to talk about Chinese censorship and the like. Whether you agree or disagree with Google's actions, they're definitely raising awareness of who they're dealing with.

  • Odds are You are worse then google. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 09 2006, @12:33PM (#15503701)
    so many god damn hypocrites here. ohh google is making money in china! burn them! while i type this out on my made in china keyboard, attached to my made in china computer, wearing my made in china whatever the hell while listening to shit spewing from my made in china stero, paid for by supporting made in china equipment.

    You think you're so noble trying to flame google over this. while you whisle dixie chicks songs and shop in wallmart.

    "I really hoped they would be a good company"... so that somehow I could justify my missdeeds by saying hey I bought stock in google.

    Just what the hell have you done to help the general populance of china today?

    Anything? Ever? no? then shut the hell up.

  • I love how we all see censorship as bad, and because Google is taking part in censorship we blame Google. We make no effort to blame the CHINESE GOVERNMENT for requiring that kind of censorship. Google does not exist to fight political battles over freedoms of people in China (although they do have a history of expanding into surprising new markets, I somehow feel that political picketing is not the next one).

    Summary: HELLO, Google is not the one censoring the chinese people, CHINA is the one censoring them
  • They seriously wrestled over this issue... On a big pile of money... with the cute girls the Chinese government sent over.

    Who can blame them for this decision? sheesh

    Or as a friend said "They're still abiding by the core company philosophy if by 'good' you mean a huge pile of money.. and 'evil' being a smaller pile of money. They are doing no evil"

    The ability to simply redefine for yourself what words mean to make youself into an angel, Bill Clinton would be proud :)
  • When your alternatives are to let the Chinese filter Google for you (making your search engine slow and unusable, and hiding that results are filtered) or filter it yourself (so people actually use your search engine, and tell people you are censoring data), what would you do? If Google walks away from China, the Chinese don't benefit- all that means that they need to use Bandu or Yahoo! search engines (which aren't open about the censorship like Google is, and help the government track and jail people).

  • ...people passing judgement about every action Google makes. Obeying laws of the countries you are doing business in can certainly be defended as an honorable way to live the mantra "Do No Evil".

    It is not the responsibility of Google to be a vehicle for political influence.

    I think what Google is trying to accomplish with this theme is to state that they want to compete fairly (albeit, agressively and relentlessly) in any markets they choose to compete in. And, that they want to offer a product to custom

  • Yahoo is less evil than Google (Score:3, Funny)

    by PietjeJantje (917584) on Friday June 09 2006, @01:43PM (#15504298)
    They are equally "evil", except that Google claims in their company motto they are not, which adds to the evilness. It is like MS having as a compay motto: "Open source - Lovin' it".

      • Re:Bad dog (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Buran (150348)
        You missed the point.

        Google's motto is "Do no evil".

        Corporations do evil things.

        Hence, Google becoming a RAC (tm) means that Google is being evil.

        Which means Google is lying in its very motto.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.