Chinese Professor Sues Google, Yahoo Over Search Exclusion

Techdirt points out that while there have been many lawsuits over someone's Google-rank, a Chinese professor is suing Google and Yahoo for removing all mention of him in China. "Google and Yahoo, of course, have agreed to play by local rules in China, upsetting many. Legally, it would seem like this suit has little chance of success — but I doubt that he cares about the legal result. What this actually does is to call attention to his plight — and on that front, it's clearly a successful strategy."

Re:Gee..

[mrxak]

A search engine's job is to make profit for their shareholders. Nothing more. It's their job to get as large a market share as possible, so that's why they do what they need to do to keep China from blocking their site. We don't have to like it, but don't confuse what Google's actual responsibility is.

Re:Gee..

[LurkerXXX]

If China blocks your engine, the Chinese government is the one doing the evil. You aren't.

When you filter content to keep secret anything a corrupt government doesn't want their citizens to see, in order to pacify the government and make money from the countries business, you are doing evil.

It's real simple.

Re:Gee..

[pclminion]

Their job is to do whatever the hell they want to do. If enough people don't like it, they'll go away, and a company will die. But don't think for a second that you can demand any company to do what you think "their job" is.

Re:Gee..

[mrxak]

Sometimes a little truth is better than no truth. You think a state-run search engine would be better for China than a filtered independent one?

Re:Gee..

[roggg]

A search engine's job is to make profit for their shareholders. Nothing more. It's their job to get as large a market share as possible, so that's why they do what they need to do to keep China from blocking their site. We don't have to like it, but don't confuse what Google's actual responsibility is.

Search engines don't have shareholders...companies do. A search engine's job is to search. A company's job is to make profit for their shareholders. Don't confuse the two. The search service that google provides to users enables them to derive ad revenue and thus profits for shareholders. Without the search service and other services they provide to users, they are nothing.

Re:Gee..

[Nemilar]

I agree and disagree, but largely on semantics.

A search engine's job is to provide you with the best results possible for your query. By removing results, the search engine is failing to perform its function to the best of its ability.

A cooperation's job is to earn as much money as possible for its shareholders. In this particular case, we have a company with an obligation to its shareholders to produce as much profit as possible. China is a huge market - Google can't not participate in it, that would be neglecting its responsibility to its shareholders. But since Google is in the search business, and China has certain rules about information exchange, Google has no choice but to cripple its product in order to maximize profits.

This is yet another example of government regulation lowering the value of a product. But this time, it's in China, and we can all look at how lucky we have it that all Google has to worry about in the US is the DMCA, instead of outright censorship of political and religious decent.

Re:Gee..

[qortra]

But Google, as a company, has made promises to its shareholders and patrons. Don't you think that many people who own shares of Google do so under the assumption that they are not evil? You assume that the primary responsibility of a company to its shareholder is financial, and it is 99.9% of the time, but it is possible for a large group of shareholders to unite and declare other simultaneous objectives for the company.

Is this the Law of Unintended Consequences ... or.

[zappepcs]

the unintended consequences of the law?

If the Chinese government has to support this case under the law, who do they fine? If Google is found guilty and forced to pay the guy, what recourse do they have for a whole barrage of such suits?

The world already knows that Chinese government forces Yahoo and Google to filter their content. Will the Chinese government support them in the legal actions, or simply disappear the guy bringing the litigation?

Interestingly, there is much ado about a similar issue in the USA. Should the government protect telecommunication companies that helped the government spy on citizens, or should those companies be left holding the bag for litigation of privacy violations?

Funny how the US Government and the Chinese Government seem to have so much in common?

Mods, please pay attention.

[palegray.net]

Moderating someone's comment as "flamebait" when the person is merely expressing an opinion that you disagree with is just wrong. There is nothing factually inaccurate about the parent post, and if it gets your panties in a wad that's just too darn bad. For people who claim to vehemently oppose censorship, especially considering the article we're discussing, you're all pretty eager to keep some peoples' comments off the radar.

you can rationalize anything i suppose

[circletimessquare]

"Doing business with apartheid south africa helps bring up the standard of living for the black people under it, eventually as the black middle class grows it forces reform. Once there's food in your belly and a roof over your head, you start to pay more attention to what else is going on in your life. While (insert name of corporation that didn't pull out of south africa in the 1980s here) is being a party to the state-sponsored racism in South Africa, remember that it's really the South African government at fault, and overall (Coca Cola/ Pepsi/ etc.) will have done more good than harm."

this quote is of course pure unadulterated bullshit

the idea of having a sense of morality or a human conscience is to act on it, not explain it away

when you see someone get raped, you report the rape. if you don't report it, you have no claim on having a sense of moralit yor a human conscience. if you say nothing because you will wait for the woman to resist by herself, your bullshit rationalization is basically just an attempt by you to neutralize your human conscience, for whatever stupid or evil motivation you have

so congratulations, based on your words above, you have no human conscience

read up on apartheid and divestment. international economic sanctions HELPED BRING DOWN APARTHEID

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid#Western_influence [wikipedia.org]

of course china is plugged into the international economy far more than south africa ever was. pulling out of china will be extremely painful for any economy. i didn't say it would be easy. but not divesting of china in one way or anyother because of china's horrible human rights record simply means the entirety of the human race has blood on its hands whenever china abuses its citizens

i'm not naive, i don't believe divestment from china is possible. but i'm not morally bankrupt either. which means the current state of affairs is simply depressing, and evil

Interesting...

[Toonol]

I note that Mr Guo's name is mentioned nowhere in the Slashdot summary. Coincidence, or deliberate so as to not cause Slashdot's page to be temporarily blocked in China? And if so, is that bad (cowardice) or good (working around the restrictions)?

Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so.

[Samgilljoy]

Doing business with an oppressive regime helps bring up the standard of living for the people under it, eventually as the middle class grows it forces reform. Once there's food in your belly and a roof over your head, you start to pay more attention to what else is going on in your life. While Google is being a party to the state-censorship in China, remember that it's really the Chinese government at fault, and overall Google will have done more good than harm.

This is a very old argument that comes in many forms and has been used to justify doing business with and forming political alliances with many questionable entities. While there is something to be said for engagement, it really does not demonstrably do "more good than harm" except for the government or the business that choose to cooperate. What it does is mollify critics who don't look too deeply into motivations or miss most of the contradictions in corporate and state propaganda.

And in particular...

Doing business with an oppressive regime helps bring up the standard of living for the people under it...

Prove it - a priori or empirically, generally or with respect to China in particular, I don't care, just try to back that up

....eventually as the middle class grows it forces reform.

If a government creates conditions that allow for the elevation of people to what we call the middle class, those thus elevated have a heavy investment in maintaining that status quo. Moreover, the people in China with what we would consider a middle class lifestyle are still among the narrow elite, when you factor in the huge number of really poor.

Once there's food in your belly and a roof over your head, you start to pay more attention to what else is going on in your life

Huge, huge leap necessary to get from not worrying about basic physical needs to political activism. Might also want to try to show everyone how big business benefits the majority of the dirt-poor masses, since worrying about food and shelter is really their problem, not that of the average city dweller in China who might be elevated to the middle class. Moreover, cheap and dangerous manufacturing jobs will probably be what gets them that food and roof, and I'm just not seeing poisoned factory workers as effective lobbyists.

While Google is being a party to the state-censorship in China, remember that it's really the Chinese government at fault...

Complicity? Aiding and abetting? These have no meaning for your version of ethics? It's "really China's fault"? No, if a company chooses to cooperate, it's their fault. It's China's fault that it engages in censorship. Any party that cooperates is responsible for that cooperation

Re:Gee..

[readin]

Sometimes a little truth is better than no truth. You think a state-run search engine would be better for China than a filtered independent one?

If Baidu were the only search engine permitted, then the Chinese people would wonder why and would know not to trust the results. But Google is the same search engine people in the free countries use. Why shouldn't they trust it? After some use even the disclaimer starts to wear thin.

A little information is better than no information when that little bit of information serves to undermine the lies people are hearing, not when that little information is selected to reinforce the lies.

Re:Blogvertisement.

[rastoboy29]

hehehe so naive...as if anyone here actually reads the articles.

The Real Culprit

[some old guy]

Odd, noone here seems to be willing to affix the blame for this whole flapdoodle (frapgoogle?) where it clearly belongs: China. International companies must comply with the statutory requirements of host countries or be sanctioned. If an onerous practice is required (such as the reporting of purchases or travel to regulatory agencies), it is not the company's responsibility to act like some starry-eyed paragon of glorious revolutionary activism. Businesses exist to generate profits for their equity holders. The Chinese political system is the problem, and the people of China have noone to blame but themselves for the resulting troubles. Teh internets can't undo China's police state, only the Chinese themselves can.

Re:Incorrect

[syousef]

American society is so self-centered: we spend so much effort on looking out for ourselves, both at the level of the individual and at the level of the corporation, and not enough on making sure that we're looking out for our friends, family, neighbors, and country.

Sure there's a lot of scum who shouldn't breed out there who are more interested in tv/playstation/drugs/booze/hoookers to be decent human beings.

There are also mothers and fathers out there working multiple jobs, spending every waking hour and every last cent on their children's well-being at the expense of their own. Congratulations for insulting them.

think that their "don't be evil" philosophy is a refreshing change from the downright predatory practices of many companies

Only if they live up to it. If it's just a marketing slogan paid lip service in exchange for PR it's part of the problem, not part of the solution.