Google's Action Makes A Mockery Of Its Values 742
Jason Jardine linked us to a well written piece discussing how Google has thus far promised to Do No Evil, but their recent decisions regarding censorship in china
make a mockery of those values. We've been following this story all along, but I thought this article makes good food for thought.
Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Had it been any other company, I would not have cared. But the point is, if you are a company that says "Do No Evil" and use that as a corporate strategy to try and earn good karma, you'd better hold on to it.
Did Microsoft say that they would do no evil? No, they did not.
On the other hand, Google tries to project the image of being Oh-so-Good and is being hypocritical about it.
If you are going to have a corporate value, stick to the bloody thing. Else don't flaunt it or be selective in its use.
This is what made me lose respect for Google - the fact that their so-called-values disappear at the first sign of money. Bah, what's the point then?
Google uses its values for no reason other than for purely strategy purposes:
Of course, most folks don't realize that like every other company, the moment money comes into picture, all values go out of the window.
Do no evil, my ass. They're worse than companies which do evil, because they don't preach something and practice hypocrisy.
Sheesh, shameless folks.
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google better at filtering (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I bet Google is better at filtering than most other search engines, so they'll better enforce Chinese govt. policy than anyone else. It would be better if they stayed out of the market.
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it did occur to me to think about that. A millisecond later, though, I realized that it's not true. All Google has done is to further the Chinese government's belief that they can censor the Internet from their citizens. After all, look at all these American companies that are willing to help the Chinese government oppress its people!
Sorry Google, but I no longer believe the "Do No Evil" story.
Hypocracy apparent: google.com vs google.cn (Score:5, Informative)
The censorship completely changes history.
Re:Hypocracy apparent: google.com vs google.cn (Score:4, Interesting)
But in support of the "something will filter through" position, I offer you this:
http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen&svnum=1 0&hl=zh-CN&lr=&cr=countryCN&start=80&sa=N [google.cn]
I see two tank pictures there.
Re:Hypocracy apparent: google.com vs google.cn (Score:5, Interesting)
And now try this: (Score:3, Insightful)
The year that never happened.
(Still, there seems to be ways around it...)
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really their own fault for coming up with a simplistic slogan that's impossible to fulfill in reality. That said, as far as I can see they're doing their best to act ethically in this moral minefield.
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
I also would agree that Google has admitted that there is Evil, and that they don't want to be Evil. But they never said that Evil is absolute, that in every choice, there will be one that is obviously Evil, and one that is obviously Good. If they did, they'd be in an even worse place than they are now -- supporting Open Source is a little evil, because it takes marketshare away from Microsoft
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
So if our influence is demonstrating that we will always sacrifice the morals we talk about for money, the good we are doing is........?
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not what I'm saying at all. Have you ever tried to filter the Internet? It CAN'T be done effectively. There are companies with a helluva lot more experience with filtering than Google, many of which supply filtering systems to governments, fortune 500 companies, and educational systems, and they STILL can't do it. What makes you think that Google can do it any better when it's not the core of their business?
Google will filter to the specifications that the People's Republic of China gives them. That's complying with the law, and it's not lying. I don't doubt that Google will also report things that slip through as they're found. This still doesn't mean that they'll keep everything out.
Remember, the more data that has to be sifted through, the harder and more computer-intensive it is to do it. Maybe enough general traffic and China's filtering won't be able to function anyway, and this will only serve to ramp up the traffic.
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
By going along with China's policy, you accept that what the Chinese government does. is the correct thing.
By staying away frm China, you close off a market of 1.2 billion people, not exactly a move that is going to win many points with the shareholders.
But, if you want to change the way China operates and not beeing seen as a supporter of China and it's oppressive politics, you have to stay away and then work towards change in the Chinese system. But then again, Google is an American company and they will go to hell and back for a dollar and they don't care about anything else. And as such, google is just continuing the traditiion from USA. The tradition is to say one thing and do something else.
Is there a company in USA that has some moral fibre left?
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, cereal manufacturers.
Oh, wait, that's just the fiber part.
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
No, by going along with China's policy you assert that providing a (however limited) search facility that will help subvert the governments objectives is better than nothing at all. Life is not fair, sometimes the best thing you can do to help still sucks. In fairytale land things like the policies of China's government would not exist and "Do No Evil" would be all flowers and puppies, but here in t
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, let's keep in mind a couple of things.
Google is not a goverment, it's a corporation. I don't think the PRC will take kindly to a corporation setting that kind of terms on them. Threats to cut off service to the country will probably be met with general laughter from the PRC's ministry in charge of that deal. Google does not provide a unique service and the PRC is aware of that. And so is everybody else.
The second poi
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Hypocrisy requires enough control over the situation to be able to do what one says. Is a mother a hypocrite when she says she loves her child but the child dies from luekemia? I mean how could you say you love your child and then let the child die?
You shouldn't judge based on a situation that doesn't exist. Google only has certain options when dealing with China, a sovereign nation. Did they choose the option most consistent with their guiding philosophy?
The parent is correct, unless you can suggest something else, doing no business with China almost certainly would have resulted in the greater harm for the Chinese. Just look at what we have done to the people of Cuba and Iraq (the general population).
Don't take the roof from over my head, the food off my table, or the book out of my hands and crow you are doing me a favor. Blind adherence to "ideals" that ignores the real world consequences is the true hypocrisy I believe.
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't seen anyone saying "Google shouldn't do business in China, because they're evil Communists." But they really shouldn't be doing anyone's dirty work for them. Political censorship is the dirtiest work there is, it's antithetical to Google's mi
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
No one here is arguing this isn't an undesirable situation, but in a choice between filtering political content (a subset of all the information indexed by Google) and China restricting all access to the search engine which is worse? It's the same reason I brought up Cuba and Iraq, not to compare specific situations (filtering vs UN sanctioned embargos) but rather the rationale behind the decision and the negative consequences of taking such a course on the people. So you would rather they have zero access, rather than access to everything but political content objectionable to China's Regime?
Hopefully China can be convinced to be more open and tolerant, but given that it's unlikely to happen today or the next day, what do we do in the meantime?
I wish I could view the world in the terms you describe, where decisions like this are "slam-dunk[s], no brainer[s]" but there just seems to be no optimal path that avoids all harm. The best I can see is choosing the path of least harm/greatest good, keeping an eye both on the short and the long term consequences. It makes things more complicated and decisions more agonizing, but I'm not willing to pay the price of harmful outcomes on the ground just for moral convenience.
Fundamentalism (Score:3, Funny)
Now we're seeing it in USA, and ...
Hang on, there's a knock at the door.
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Great idea. "Dear esteemed heads of Google, you are cordially invited to our palace where we will honor and reward you for helping our country roll into the new millenium."
I'm sure they're able to read between the lines, but were I a Google higher-up, I'd prefer not to travel to a hostile country where people disappear.
Just one thing.... (Score:3, Interesting)
How would the Chinese people know about the censorship if no one tells them about it? Their government controls their media and as far as the average person would be concerned
Re:Just one thing.... (Score:3, Interesting)
That seemed to be the main point of the woman who was interviewed on "The News Hour" on PBS last night. Priot to this, if you did a Google search in China, you would see all the listings. If you clicked on a search result the Chinese government filtered, the link wouldn't load -but you knew it was there. The way Google does it now, that link will never show up in the first place. The searcher won't know what's missing. The
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would that stop working on account of this? If they're out of country proxies, then they're not in IP-space that Google would be monitoring. They should remain entirely unaffected.
How 'bout this one, since we're being hypothetical all of the way around here: What if the general populace's use of Google makes it popular enough that more and more of them want to use anonymous proxies in third party countries? Wouldn't that actually work even more against the Chinese Government?
I'm not going to worry about China right now. The more Western they're exposed, the more they'll change, and right now there's no good indication of where that's going. I'm willing to let it happen to find out.
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but there's something clever that Google will be doing there -- they said that if anything is censored out, then the search results will contain a note saying that "some
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
How would you feel if a company came to do business in your country without following the rules? I understand that with an internet company, it's a little different. But still, I don't think it's fair to ask that Google lead the crusade to liberate China from oppressive censorship.
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
"I was only following orders" went out of style at Nuremburg
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
By doing business with the PRC in this way Google, and anyone else who does so, sacrifices objective good for profit. Google could easily just say, No, we will not do your dirty work for you, and stay out of China.
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
Should I stop another culture from allowing the use of dangerous fireworks?
Should I stop another culture from caning people?
Should I stop another culture from restricting trade on the latest gee-whiz makes your life easier device?
Should I stop another culture from oppressing freedom of speech and religion?
Should I stop another culture from systematically sexually and physically abusing a minority group?
Should I stop another culture from allowing slavery?
Should I stop another culture from committing genocide?
Saying that we shouldn't impose our values on another culture is fine, but only to a certain point. Maybe we should allow them to censor information, but definitely we shouldn't make it easier for them to do so. There has to be a line somewhere, and our opposition to any culture should be proportional to how far along a "continuum of evil" they are. I think that today we shouldn't be helping China censor their population.
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
It would allow Google to live up to its own motto, which is no small thing.
It would, presumably, lead to a loss of comparative advantage for China, if we assume that (in a moral-free world) using Google is the optimal choice for them.
It would help highlight the problem.
A major US company turning its back on many millions based solely on adherence to principle? Not change the world? It would send shockwaves through the world. It challenges the very basis of market capitalism.
(A) We're not really asking anything. Google has told the world that they will do business guided by "Don't be evil". That's saying a lot. All we're asking is that they follow what they say.
(b) And if it is asking a lot -- well, too bad. Being free is advanced citizenship. It's not cheap, or easy, or convenient. It's not something done as an afterthought. They want to partake of the benefits of freedom, maybe they should pony up the ticket price. And that goes for every company, not just Google.
"Everyone else is doing it" is no more a valid moral justification than "I was just following orders".
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, we don't like a lot of things the PRC does. We even consider some of those things "evil".
But then, a lot of other countries say that about us when we execute a mentally-challenged person, or even when we execute anyone at all. Or when we invade a country on our own volition that hasn't directly attacked us. *You* may not think those things are evil, but a lot of other people in the world do.
Have you ever bought a diamond? You're supporting "evil". Several brands of shoes and clothing? Also evil. Are Tobacco companies evil? Then huge swaths of consumer products and services support that, as those companies have their fingers in lots of other pies. Where does one draw the line?
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Provide no content/index in China.
2. Provide a partial content/index in China.
I, for one, consider this a worthy moral dilemma. It's by no means obvious to me that "provide nothing" is less evil than "provide partial." Part of me feels that they should have said "it's all or nothing!" as a moral stance, so as to "teach China a lesson." On the other hand, the people of China get screwed in this case: they don't get *any* content/index. That's not a great solution.
What Google decided to do was provide a partial index, WITH A WARNING that the content had been censored. This obviously isn't as good as having full access, but at least they are trying to let people know what's going on (that they are complying with local law).
Whether Google did this to "be good" or for money is irrelevant to the moral question. If I were running a free and non-profit search engine whose goal was "to bring the world's information to everyone, for free" I think I would end up making the same compromise as Google (and obviously for ethical, not monetary, reasons). Probably Google realized that this compromise made the best of a bad situation (in terms of both money and morals).
So before you condemn Google for being evil, acknowledge that this is a difficult issue and that not everyone agrees with you that they made the wrong choice.
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Re:Sheer Hypocrisy (Score:2)
Google might be hypocrite, but you, Sir, are snob (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time people have access to more information, even though it might be censored, its always good in the end. And once people get more used to access to ready information, they will eventually demand access to all information. Google even censored, will have a huge positive social impact in China.
And last, but not least. Even though I live for half of my life in a totalitarian regime, I have never met with so much propaganda, misinformation and people willing to gobble it up and eat the shit from the hand of their government, until I moved to United States. The difference is staggering. I actually feel the people in United States are more controlled, watched and led by hand by their government than the people of my country were during a communist totalitarian regime. So in the end from my point of view, the only hypocrite here are you, Sir.
Re:Google might be hypocrite, but you, Sir, are sn (Score:3, Insightful)
If google had simply quietly complied with Ch
News media doesn't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:News media doesn't get it (Score:2)
They're inconsistent. They refuse to play by some rules, and then they bend over backwards to comply with others. I'm not impressed.
Re:News media doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:News media doesn't get it (Score:3, Informative)
A corporation HAS to act evil(*). It has no choice. The only moral imperitive of a corporation is "make more money". That's it. There is nothing else (or at least everything else has to take a back seat.
* by evil I am using the biblical definition as in "love of money is the root of all evil" and "it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven then for a camel to go through the eye of a needle".
Another Article (Score:5, Informative)
It does offer a benefit (Score:3, Insightful)
How about this as a benefit. The person in China using Google doesn't wind up in jail or worse a bill to his family from the state for the bullet.
This is beyond the obvious of China not letting Google do business there.
Re:It does offer a benefit (Score:2)
Re:It does offer a benefit (Score:3, Informative)
China 'outstrips world' on executions [bbc.co.uk].
Death penalty crimes in China:
Whose "evil"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Now whose "evil" are we talking about? In the US, it's clear from our constitution and bill of rights what we, as a country, hold valuable and consider "evil".
However, as so many people like to say, the US is not the rest of the world. There are other countries, with other values, and they aren't necessarily the same as ours. Are they "wrong"? What makes ours "right"? Because we like them?
Who is trying to push morals/values/ethics on someone else now? Or is this just what we say when we don't like
Re:Whose "evil"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Whose "evil"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whose "evil"? (Score:4, Insightful)
So whose ethical absolute are you promoting? Yours? Why is yours more valid than mine?
In short, what makes your "evil" evil?
Re:Whose "evil"? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Whose "evil"? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Whose "evil"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting question. Why don't you do some research on various philosophical outlooks, and get back to us on that. While you're looking for information to make your decision, ask yourself what you'd do if you were unable to find the information you need in order to make your decision. How would you feel if you knew that information existed but you're not permitted to see it. Not because the owner of the information set a price for it that you couldn't afford, not because you didn't know where it was, but simply because someone else said so.
Killing people may or may not be evil. Putting them in small cells for the rest of their life may or may not be evil. Telling them that they are permitted to only have one child may or may not be evil. But denying people access to information so that they can make reasoned and informed decisions, what is that, if not evil?
Obeying Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
If Google promoted censorship in the US, then I would be unhappy. However I'm not going to fault them for playing by the rules wherever they operate.
Re:Obeying Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
An analogy indicating that laws prohibiting lead in electronics and laws against seeking democratic political reform are equally valid and equally deserving of respect gets modded as insightful?
Here, I'll explain.
What is wrong with "obeying the laws of a country in which you do business" depends upon the nature of the laws and the nature of the country. A European company would not be evil if it sold non-lead-free electronics in the US, because the US is a democratic state containing at least some feedback between the populace affected by the laws and the process which creates and enforces those laws. If the citizens within the US wanted to change the laws to ban the sale of non-lead-free electronics, then they are capable of doing so, and therefore this hypothetical European country would not be capitalizing on an oppressed and captive citizenry.
Now consider a different European country. Instead of selling non-lead-free electronics in the United States, it sells slaves in Sudan. This company would be acting in accord with the law [religioustolerance.org] in Sudan.
There. That's a lot closer to the situation in China: a non-democratic nation whose citizens have no power to effect change in the laws of their country or the manner in which the laws are enforced, and who tend to get crushed under the treads of tanks or suffer sudden 7.62mm brain hemmorhages if they try to do so. Would you excuse that company's actions because you "don't see what's wrong with obeying the laws of a country in which you do business," or would you suddenly acquire the capacity for moral judgement and just maybe perhaps suggest that the company shouldn't do business selling slaves in fucking Sudan?
Re:Obeying Laws (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, it is.
My intent is not to claim that what Google is doing is akin to selling slaves. All analogies break down.
My intent was to beat the parent poster over the head with the staggeringly modern notion that just because something is legal does not mean that it is moral, and that just because the law requires that you do something does not indicate that it is ethical or moral for you to comply with it.
A law can, at *best*, only
Re:Obeying Laws (Score:3, Insightful)
You're seriously suggesting that there are no laws so fundamentally immoral that to obey them would be evil? Prior to the US Civil War, one was legally obligated to turn in runaway slaves. I would suggest that following that law was more wrong than breaking the law. In Nazi Germany it was illegal to conceal Jews. Again, I'd suggest that obeying that law would be wrong. Ratting out your fellow filmmakers as
Re:Yes, they surely did decide (Score:4, Insightful)
no this isn't a troll - criticisim issues within the USA does not mean anti-USA
Lesser evil (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes you cant avoid harming, good intentions or not, but you can take a path that gives the minimum/less permanent damage.
not hypocrisy in the least (Score:5, Insightful)
If it were the case that Google had leverage with the Chinese government, and if they could use that leverage to eradicate censorship in China, then perhaps the arguments of hypocrisy would hold water. This, however, is not the case.
The simple fact is, with or without Google operating in China, censorship there will continue to exist. If we assume that this is the case, and further that Google can only operate in China if they agree to abide by the laws in China (regardless of what we think of those laws), then there are only two possible scenarios.
Unless you can make the argument (and, in my estimation, it is an incoherent one) that somehow Google sans censorship is a net positive value to the Chinese citizenry, but censored Google is a net negative value, you must necessarily conclude that some access to Google is better than none.
Fundamentally, the censorship is China's fault, not Google's. They're doing their best to ensure that they give as much access as they can to the people in China.
-rsw
Re:not hypocrisy in the least (Score:3, Insightful)
Your economic analysis is also incorrect. The United States government eventually dropped its laws that cryptographic algorithms should be subject to munitions export laws, in part because those laws caused US companies to be unable to compete in the world market. Refusing to supply Google search to the Chinese could possibly result in China being l
Re:not hypocrisy in the least (Score:3, Insightful)
Another way to look at it (or state it) is whether the Chinese people would be "more free" with a censored Google, or no Google at all. I think the answer is that even a censored Google will help them to gain more awareness of the situation. For one thing, censorship is an enumerating badness [ranum.com] type of deal; the government is always going to miss things
Re:not hypocrisy in the least (Score:5, Insightful)
Google (and similar companies) should say to China, "no, we find the rules to which you will subject us to be morally unacceptable, and so we choose not to do business in your country." Economic pressure through divestiture was key in the downfall of South African aparthied, and there's no reason that similar boycotts can't work in China.
Re:not hypocrisy in the least (Score:3, Insightful)
You realize a statement like that has serious side effects?
If Google actually stepped up and said "morally unacceptable," the State Department would flip out.
It wouldn't just be a business statement, it would be a statement of foreign policy.
The United States does not encourage criticism of China. Clinton decided to grant mos
Re:not hypocrisy in the least (Score:3, Insightful)
If Google had chosen to refuse business in China as statement, it would certainly put pressure on MSN and Yahoo. It might be good for their stocks, but it would certainly be bad for their P.R. and make it more difficult for other visible companies to make compromises in China. This doesn't make the decision easy or obvious, but Google is certainl
Options (Score:2)
Others are suggesting that there is a third option which is that it should be"using its market power to support free speech and influence the Chinese government ". How exactly would that work? What do they expect Google to do?
China and practically the entire world knows that China is poised to become the worlds biggest economy in the coming years. They know it and I don't think businesses really have ANY influe
Depends on the eventual implementation (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, this level of "cooperation" with the Chinese censors shows no inherent sign that Google won't be ratcheting up their limitations on the engine even further... I see no limits in place to make sure further corruption won't happen. Perhaps behind the scenes, they exist, but in the context, I do agree with this part of the criticism of Google's actions.
Still Google as it now exists is a nice window in the firewall of China, even if it has been smudged. At least it's open enough for open source projects of various sorts to know how to build a door for those interested.
Not defending Google but.. (Score:2)
I guess the other option is to not do business there at all.
The censorship is and will be there regardless of any new company that comes in to do business. I guess the act of Google or any company doing what the government wants could be considered supporting the censorship but specific companies not doing business over there is not going to change anything either.
To Quote So I Married an Axe Murderer (Score:2)
Or something along those lines.
Best thing Google can do under the circumstances! (Score:4, Insightful)
(1) If Google did not censor their content for China, Google would not be allowed into China at all. Google is an incredibly valuable resource for anyone looking for information. What's worse? Giving the Chinese as much information as Chinese law allows? Or leaving them with nothing at all?
(2) What is the "right thing"? By whose terms? We're arrogantly acting like American values of free speech are the only possible meaningful set of values. Don't get me wrong; from my perspective, free speech is vital, and China is only hurting itself by being totalitarian. But by the standards of the Chinese government and many Chinese people, Google is most CERTAINLY doing the "right thing" by censoring content.
So, when it comes down to it, all Google is doing is obeying the law, just as they would have to do if the US government passed some horribly boneheaded law. It's either that or go out of business. Are you so foolish as to think that Google could resist the censorship and somehow manage to bully the Chinese government into allowing Google access from within China anyway? Come back when you have your head out of your ass.
More of a victim then evil. (Score:3, Insightful)
China is a rapidly modernizing state, but its politcs are stuck in the 1960s. But without Google they will still be very isolated (Internet wise). Even if google does censor the information they are doing more good then harm. What Google can do is give people ideas that are not directly connected to the censored items and have them figure it out themselfs.
Slavery (Score:2, Interesting)
"Honoring a sovereign nation" - Check
"Every culture has different values" - Check
"Working within the law to make some money" - Check
And with the argument of, "We will be nice to the slaves, and since other companies would undoubtedly step in and be cruel to them - we are justified in our assistance," we complete the similarities.
Money rules all - there's nothing new under the sun.
Open Internet already a thing of the past (Score:2)
Google is the highest-profile player in the game of free access vs. government control, but the larger battle has been going on for years. Unfortunately, governments are winning [legalaffairs.org]. What's fascinating to me is just how much the law of unintended consequences comes into play here. The first shot in this war was French government's battle with Yahoo! over Nazi-related materials. Seems like a good idea to keep those nasty Nazis from using the Net to spread their vile beliefs. Unfortunately, once you put down a fe
It's the other way around... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah but..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Their choices are to operate in China under China's rules, or to get out. They can't choose to operate in China under US rules. So which is better for their users? I think it's better, less evil, for google to run their Chinese access under Chinese rules, than to provide no access at all.
Capitalism and Competetive Advantage (Score:3, Funny)
What would happen to Google if they suddenly decided to withdraw from China?
I wonder if Microsoft and other companies would gain a significant competetive advantage just for being available to a large part of the world's population?
Google isn't "being evil" ...just realistic (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that, without google, the largest population of human beings in the world would be missing out on some of the best parts of the internet. Granted, many of those parts will be censored, but we all know censorship isn't ever going to be 100% effective, anyway.
What China needs is information. The more information we can get piped into Chinese cultural consciousness, the sooner their society will be able to emerge from this dark cloud. The internet is exactly the tool to provide that information, and if google is able to deliver it better than anyone else, then I say more power to them. I think it's obvious that our government hasn't had much luck in changing the Chinese government by scolding them or leveraging political and economic sanctions. Having said that, it seems pretty obvious to me that we should consider a different approach. From my perspective, that's exactly what google is doing. There's an old saying:
You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Justin Jardin is Evil (Score:3, Insightful)
FBI and China - two difficult moral decisions (Score:4, Interesting)
With the FBI case [slashdot.org], a goverment was asking (demanding) that Google hand over search logs which would seriously comprimise the privacy, and perhaps the security, of a large number of citizens. Google said "naff off" - and kudos to them. I wish Yahoo and MS had the balls to do the same (but I wouldn't expect it)
With China, a goverment is requiring that Google not allow it's citizens access to certain data. Google have agreed. I think it's a shame but I can understand Google following national laws - especially when it has no privacy or survaliance result. I suspect the alternative would be that Google would be blocked from the Chinese national firewalls. In either case the citizens are prevented from accessing the search results. With this result the citizens do not have reduced access (they'd be blockedone way or another) but google retains a presence
Now - if Google were also handing over the logs of failed search requests then it would be a double standard and hypocrisy, and definitly "doing evil". As it stands I think the two issues are quite seperate. I also think they've come to a reasonably good conclusion when faced with very difficult moral questions
Published on Yahoo! I see... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just imagine, a lesser company might have taken the opportunity to jump on the bandwagon and gratuitously smear the reputaton of it's leading rival.
The Cuba Theory - makes China More Free (Score:4, Interesting)
This is my Cuba Theory - if instead of the stupid policy we have now the US opened up our borders to Cuba, allowed free trade and free communication even within the limitations of Castro's murderous regime, Cuba would be a free and prosperous democracy in months, not years, and Castro would live out his days happily doddering away in retirement.
The same IS WORKING NOW from China. Because we opened our doors, China is a better and freer place every day.
Of course, we are utterly dependent on Chinas' good will, and soom half of America will be scrubbing toilets for Red Army officers, but hey that's progress.
Google should publish the filter list (Score:5, Interesting)
Publish the blocked list.
While this doesn't solve the problem of Google pandering to the Chinese regime, it can demonstrate to the rest of the world exactly what China is afraid will unbalance it's leaderships power. Raising the visibility of banned authors and topics will help undermine their attempt to limit knowledge.
Let ye who cast the first stone.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth of the matter is that everyone deals with people or organizations that may not hold the same ideals as they do. Witness the fact that the U.S. government, which has stated it wants democracy everywhere, deals with countries such as Saudi Arabia that do not have a democratic system.
I submit to you that the more interaction there is with a non-democratic state, the more likely democracy will flow to the non-democratic state. As someone else said, information is the key. Even with Google's self-imposed censorship, things will get through and it can only be good.
Decisions, decisions.. (Score:5, Insightful)
1.) I can sensor some of my product in a country.
2.) I can not have my product in the country.
Tell me, under the guiding idea of "Do No Evil" or rather "Don't Be Evil," which is not evil?
With option 1, I have some ability to do good.
Under option 2, I have no ability to do good.
Re:Decisions, decisions.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Now if this was occuring in a 'free' country like the US, Canada, EU, etc... I would have a real problem with it. I think it's interest
different search criteria in China (Score:3, Funny)
When you search 'Austin Skate Notes [google.com]' on the American Google, the Bush protest does not appear on the first page of results. It's interesting to me that the Chinese Google thinks visitors would be more interested in the protest photos than American Google users.
Seth
Wasted Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
The absence of the world's largest, most popular search engine inside the Chinese firewall would have been as glaringly obvious as a pink elephant. The Chinese people aren't idiots, they know their government censors information [breitbart.com], and they would know why Google had suddenly been blocked by the firewall. Word would get out, through the grapevine and other unofficial channels, and it might even constitute an embarrassing loss of face for the Communist party. Of course, the Chinese would much prefer that Baidu, Sino, or one of their own home-grown search engines be the #1 search engine, but they would still know that the only truly reliable search engine, the one that refuses to censor their information, was Google, and had been blocked by their government. Unlike Americans, the Chinese have long memories, and such an association would pay off in PR and face for Google in the long term.
Google on the other hand might take a stock price hit, but no investor could say they were't warned that Google might make decisions based on long-term considerations rather than short term stock-price-propping, or that Google's corporate values might sometimes conflict with the best interests of their stock price. However, such a move would certainly solidify the image of Google as a singular organization with the most honest and accurate search results worldwide, truly dedicated to its mission of organizing all the world's information.
Furthermore, Google's refusal to cooperate with the Chinese Government might have opened the door for other search engines, media, and businesses to follow suit, and emboldened the Chinese people and businesses to demand more unfettered access to information and less government interference. Someone mentioned on
So this appears to be an unfortunately wasted opportunity, for Google to make a strong political statement based on its values, that might have hurt it in the short term but most likely have paid off in PR and face in the long-term.
Google, we expected better.
Do no evil- But who decides what is evil? (Score:3, Insightful)
Google said they wouldn't monitor you email and now they do. Yeah they changed the TOS, but quietly. Did you get an email clearly explaining the change and asking if you wanted to opt out? Google knows people are very reluctant to change email addresses. They get you hooked on an email address and service, give you lots of features and promise to be nice. After you are hooked and that is where all your correspondence goes, surprise, the TOS change.
A recent survey showed that something like 75% of the people had no idea about he personal data Google collects and what they do with it. They currently promise only to use it for their business purposes. But they also reserve the right to change their minds about this.
Do not evil is simple the best marketing program in years. Google is a commercial enterprise like all the others. They are no better and may or may not be worse. They do a lot of cute stuff to fool you. The founders take salaries of $1. Gee, if you are worth 10 billion it is a real hardship. But the press reports this and they look like good guys. These guys are the best PR guys out there.
But, despite how good they are at the hype game, just remember: You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time! Eventually, the public catches on and sees through the hype. The Chine stuff is the first crack in the wall of brilliant PR.
Perspective of an American Living in China (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea that serving something is better than nothing is totally false. The idea that by serving a little now someday it will help influence people to demand change from the gov't is also false. I live in Beijing and with all the free market capitalism here there is not an equal demand for freedom (other than freedom to buy stuff). That's because people are convinced the best they can hope for is to have money to buy stuff and dodge the gov't as much as possible. Cynical, yes, but after living here for 2 years that is what I see.
All that it does is tell the Chinese Gov't people are willing to accede to their demands to help them inprove fascism. It's part of a strategy to give the appearance of freedom without the moral depth.
Here's something. Send Google a message:
http://www.google.com/search?q=censorship+is+doin
Anyone out their good with Gimp and can wip up a nice little logo? If that query suddenly became the most popular search string at google maybe it will wake them up.
Re:Sometimes it is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sometimes it is (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, I get it... (Score:2)
What if the laws themselves are evil?
Re:Oh, I get it... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Holocaust was the law of the Nazis.
Genocide in Camobia: the law of the Khmer-Rouge.
Child soldiers in Sudan: the law of the land.
Mass execution of Kurds in Iraq: the law of Sadam.
Tiananmen Square Masacre...
Well, you get the point.
Now, I am not anti-China. It is poised to emerge as the next super power in every conceivable way...BUT...that doesnt mean everything law they enact is right. The Western world has a storied history about how the free and open exchange of id
Re:lets be serious.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:DMCA Filter (Score:2)