Chinese Professor Sues Google, Yahoo Over Search Exclusion 147
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."
Communist China != Soviet Russia (Score:3, Funny)
Drum roll...
Wait for it...
In Soviet Russia, search engine sues YOU!
Thank you everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on how many people try the veal.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is - People try to game the mod system because they (ironically) belive karma is a competion, if you think it's funny mod it as funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Just write a check (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Blogvertisement. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gee.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Gee.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Incorrect (Score:2)
Google does ahve a responsibility, as does everybody. What they are doing is wrong, and to think the Chinese government could actually block them is laughable.
You no, they could remove their servers from china and distribute a tool that helps people get around blocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Incorrect (Score:5, Interesting)
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. Google's not perfect, and I'm not sure I like their approach to dealing with China, but I think that their "don't be evil" philosophy is a refreshing change from the downright predatory practices of many companies. At least they're making an effort.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 e
Re:Gee.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
"A search engines job"
Its the company who developes/maintains the search engine who's job is to make a profit, a search engine simply lists links to all relavant web pages it finds to the search query.
Although that developer does intrinsicly have the right to edit the method that the search engine uses to find results, a search engine is incapable of making a profit.
Im not quite as pissed as this guy, but some of you dont realize
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Gee.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it's possible, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen. The primary responsibility of a company to its shareholders is financial, pure and simple (and legally defined).
If Google or Yahoo had incorporated as non-profits, I might have been surprised. As is, picture me yawning.
Re: (Score:2)
Mods, please pay attention. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When companies forget that their first responsibility is to their customers and their second responsibility is to their staff and their last responsibility it to their shareholders, they die, fail in the first two and there is absolutely no chance the third will stand a chance.
Now of course we have t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Money is not god, not even in economics.
Re:Gee.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
With either one, the only hope of the Chinese citizen truth is to find an open proxy to connect to a REAL search engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But even if the government had done a better job, there still would be people who travel and other ways of getting access to foreign materials.
Perhaps
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right now, the Chinese government can keep their restrictions very vague, and companies like Google will be forced to either filter anything that MIGHT piss off the Chinese government or else risk getting in big legal trouble.
If it was the actual government doing the filtering, it would be known exactly what the government didn't want people to know (not what Google thought the government di
Re: (Score:2)
by mrxak (727974) on Friday February 08, @01:29PM (#22351710)
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?
Yes, I do.
I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with your statement that "a little truth is better than no truth." Having read and discussed this issue with people who live under censorship, people easily recognize and disregard outright propaganda by their government.
The s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Choice between a filtered search engine and a filtered search engine isn't a real choice about where to get truthful information. My concern isn't for the amount of workload added to the Chinese government. It's about there being a real search engine out there for them to get good information at if they can find a proxy or some hole through the firewall. If Yahoo (and Google) are willing to filter for the Chinese government to make money out of their market, what e
Thanks Pontus (Score:2)
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.
It's just that subtle distinction that would make Pontus Pilate proud. Screw what's actually best for the people, as long as *you* didn't do anything directly wrong, you can sleep at night.
The wo
Re: (Score:2)
One way they are posting all the content for the world to see, the other they are blocking content from many so that a repressive government can keep their people ignorant.
And you compare this to the washing of hands of Pilate? Are you personally sending information about the Tiananmen square massacre to every citizen in China? If not, you are just as 'guilty' of hiding information from them as Yahoo would be for posting
Re: (Score:2)
One way they are posting all the content for the world to see, the other they are blocking content from many so that a repressive government can keep their people ignorant.
Yeah, except that's wrong. That first way would have gotten Google completely blocked in China, which you should recall unless you've been living in a cave. So the balance is actually "one way the Chinese people get 0% of Google, the other way the Chinese people get 99% of Google." See how that's not as simple as you want it to be an
Re: (Score:1)
What if they weren't doing it to make money? (Score:1)
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.
What if money wasn't the motive?
What if Google plowed all its China-related earnings into programs that promoted freedom for Chinese people?
What if they secretly funneled the funds to underground groups in China?
What if they operated in a zero-profit mode, with the goal of "getting away with as much as the Tiger will let us" in terms of providing useful even subversive information to the Chinese people while appearing to be playing by the rules?
Now, the fact of the matter is this probably isn't the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well for starters, Google could very publicly protract this case for as long as possible. They could do lip service to the PRC while making sure that Guo Quan gets as much airtime and pundit discussion as possible. Google is in a tight spot in China, as are most of the Chinese. Simply by being there to be sued they have done more to illuminate this man's plight then they could have every done if they did no business with the PRC at all. Now they just have to take this opportunity
Re: (Score:2)
When you've got two demons on either side of you, and no other way to go, how can you not do evil?
It is unavoidable in the case of Google or any other corporation. That is why it makes no sense, at least in my estimation, for people to form attachments to corporations or believe them when they talk about their "corporate conscience" or how they promise that they will not do evil things. Here is an important tidbit for everyone who is surprised by the actions taken by Google, or indeed any other corporation. Corporations exist to maximize profit for their owners period...that is it and that is all. They
The summary is basically the article...it's so.. (Score:1)
To quote Nelson: "Ha ha!"
You can't win Google and Yahoo! when you play by evil rules. China is an evil communist regime that suppresses their people and ideas. Kudos for trying to do business with them and it may help the Chinese people, but when you cater to the evil, you will get bit in the ass.
Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good point, but doing business with a dictatorship alone does not guarantee the toppling of said dictator. The businesses should do business, but that business should come with strings attached by the home government. The US needs to reign in these companies from going over there and
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good point, but doing business with a dictatorship alone does not guarantee the toppling of said dictator.
Precisely, it was Milton Friedman [wikipedia.org] who said in his book Capitalism and Freedom [wikipedia.org] that, "Capitalism and free markets are necessary, although not sufficient conditions for political freedom."
Re: (Score:2)
you can rationalize anything i suppose (Score:5, Insightful)
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
incredibly retarded (Score:2)
states exist in this world. trade within, to, or from a state affects its health and its viability. to explain this any more to you would be at a pedantic level of intellectual charity i am not interested in stoooping to
concentrate real hard, and maybe some simple realities of human society that most people learn in kindergarten will dawn on you someday
you want to talk about insults? (Score:2)
like i said, you can rationalize anything
congratulations, you've successfully rationalized your prediliction for not caring about other people
the world doesn't need more smart people. the world needs more good people
you're obviously smart. but you're also an asshole
now THAT'S an insult
xoxoxoxoxox
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so. (Score:1)
Re:The summary is basically the article...it's so. (Score:2)
Kind of says it all, doesn't it?
why beat up Yahoo and Google? (Score:2)
You and I play by the same evil rules when we buy Chinese made electronics and clothes, made in Chinese sweat shops. The US government plays by the same evil rules when it borrows money from the Chinese (for interest!) and kowtows to Chinese monetary and trade policies.
So, don't blame Google or Yahoo alone; this is a problem that almost every American business, politician, a
Link to real article (Score:5, Informative)
Times Online [timesonline.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
He will be excluded (not virtually) (Score:1, Funny)
Ah, the joys of communism...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Professa (Score:2)
And in other news (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the Law of Unintended Consequences ... or. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Is this the Law of Unintended Consequences ... (Score:2)
Not sure what you mean. The Chinese government's not involved. Suit is in the US.
Re:Is this the Law of Unintended Consequences ... (Score:2)
I'm not seeing the similarity.
The government, as far as I know, didn't use its force to make the Telcos comply with their requests or threaten them with retaliation.
At least the Chinese government was open about what they were doing, and were following
Re:Is this the Law of Unintended Consequences ... (Score:2)
A bit unfair (Score:2)
skills put to good use... (Score:2, Interesting)
in soviet russia ... no really (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, it didn't mention that there was anything political about Guo's name being removed at all., or even that he was involved with a pro-democracy movement. The wording suggested it was just another frivolous lawsuit out of vanity, like the companies
The Fine Line Search Engines Walk (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Show everything--this implies crap sites (*coughs* boingboing), great sites (*coughs*
2) Do as you are told--obviously not as fun and cries of shenanigans and submissions are there, but then y
Anyone... (Score:2)
Wow-- very orwellian erasing his existence (Score:3, Interesting)
I *TRUSTED* them to give me impartial and accurate information (vs MSN which was hilariously slanted for microsoft some times).
I am going to look for another search engine.
I find this behavior to be extremely repugnant.
I'm not sure I can forgive them. They will join Sony on my entire list of companies that I won't buy products from.
Full disclosure- I do still play everquest which sony bought... but other than that no purchases of any of their products for close to 6 or 7 years now as well as directing company purchases I advise on against sony every time.
Sad that a company sworn to be ethical would fall to this kind of evil behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I feel they are behaving evilly and so I will no longer use them as a search engine or support their business.
My standards for good and evil are based on thirty years of pondering them in connection with my own lack of religious belief and the search for an ethical system not based on random assertions by ancient tribes people while also recognizing that those random assertions were the ones that helped those societies survive
Re: (Score:2)
If a company wants to do something for profit, they are welcome to purchase or write the entire software stack but cannot use many open source products.
If the chinese government wants to suppress it's own people, and then recreate all the benefits of western society and businesses, go for it. But for companies based in the west to use the safety here to suppress people in other countries is horrible. Executives who support dictatorships should be ejected from free societi
My letter to google.. (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but I must stop using Google as a result of your collusion with the chinese government in erasing his existence. It certainly violates your stated founding principles so you can make money.
I will advise my friends to do so as well. Hopefully the loss of non-chinese profits will be sufficient to convince your company that this kind of behavior is too costly to continue.
Bullshit (Score:2)
The Real Culprit (Score:2, Insightful)
Not the first time. (Score:2)
Now, I like a great deal of what Google does. I find their Google Talks [youtube.com] series to be an especially wonderful resource. --But it's important t
Google can't win either way (Score:2)