What's wrong with Google "blocking/filtering" Chinese searches - anything?

[Darat]

What's wrong with Google "blocking/filtering" Chinese searches - anything?

I've read a few Member's comments that seem to indicate that Google is somehow doing something wrong by "acquiescing" to the Chinese government's regulations/demands in regards to what searches they can return to Chinese citizens. (See:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4647468.stm)

I've struggled to understand what is wrong with their approach, all I see is a company doing what companies are meant to do. How is this different from say Google complying with an EU directive or a UK law?

Is it that China is an "oppressive regime"? If so why is it different for Google then for every other company trading with or having anything to do with China or for that matter every government that allows trade with China or recognises the "oppressive regime"?

 

[aerocontrols]

For those interested, here is a writeup about how google censorship works.

http://sethf.com/anticensorware/general/google-censorship.php

 

[richardm]

I think that since they tell the users that their search results have been filtered, and that the alternative is to have an even more heavily restricted or unavailable Google, then it's not a bad solution. I think there is so much hoo-ha because Google are supposed to be an ethical company, and China is not ethical, therefore there should be no dealings with them. According to some people.

Obviously since MSN and Yahoo are already in there with their filtered results Google would be keen to follow.

Edit:

For those interested, here is a writeup about how google censorship works.

That's interesting, thanks.

 

[Manny]

Is it that China is an "oppressive regime"? If so why is it different for Google then for every other company trading with or having anything to do with China or for that matter every government that allows trade with China or recognises the "oppressive regime"?

Yes. UK = good; China = bad. It's different from governments because they have to deal with China. It's different from other companies because Google is in the speech business, not the widget business. I share similar disdain for other companies in the speech business who cooperate with China's repression of its citizens. That includes news providers, Microsoft, etc. Google might get a teensy bit of extra opprobrium on account of their sanctimony about not being evil.

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

Yes. UK = good; China = bad. It's different from governments because they have to deal with China. It's different from other companies because Google is in the speech business, not the widget business. I share similar disdain for other companies in the speech business who cooperate with China's repression of its citizens. That includes news providers, Microsoft, etc. Google might get a teensy bit of extra opprobrium on account of their sanctimony about not being evil.

Agreed. Google is helping the Chinese Communist Party maintain their stranglehold upon Chinese society. They are in the same category as widget manufacturers using child or slave labour.

 

[El Greco]

Could this be the beginning of the end for Google's world rule ? Hasn't it lasted long enough for Internet standards anyway ?

 

[Darat]

Yes. UK = good; China = bad. It's different from governments because they have to deal with China. It's different from other companies because Google is in the speech business, not the widget business. I share similar disdain for other companies in the speech business who cooperate with China's repression of its citizens. That includes news providers, Microsoft, etc. Google might get a teensy bit of extra opprobrium on account of their sanctimony about not being evil.

I don't see how what they are doing is worse then say Walmart or Tesco buying a lot of their goods from China - in fact I'd say Walmart or Tesco's activities at the moment provide more support for the Chinese government then something like Google simple from the scale of the trade and how much foreign money flows into China from that trade.

Also Google aren't into "speech business" they are into "making money business".

 

[Darat]

Could this be the beginning of the end for Google's world rule ? Hasn't it lasted long enough for Internet standards anyway ?

Well people have keep predicting it will be the "next Microsoft" - and that won't happen by "do no evil"...

 

[Manny]

I don't see how what they are doing is worse then say Walmart or Tesco buying a lot of their goods from China - in fact I'd say Walmart or Tesco's activities at the moment provide more support for the Chinese government then something like Google simple from the scale of the trade and how much foreign money flows into China from that trade.

Historically, increased economic freedom has led to demands for increased political freedom. I'm not under any illusions that Wal*Mart is doing business in China because one possible outcome is demand for increased political freedom, but I recognize that as one historically likely outcome so I hold them less blameful for collaboration (subject, of course, to them taking reasonable steps to avoid the kinds of things Nick Bogaerts referred to.

Also Google aren't into "speech business" they are into "making money business".

So is CNN, and any other business. But when CNN quashed stories about Iraq in order to maintain "access" to Saddam Hussein, I think that was a bad thing.

 

[Mark]

Yes. UK = good; China = bad. It's different from governments because they have to deal with China. It's different from other companies because Google is in the speech business, not the widget business. I share similar disdain for other companies in the speech business who cooperate with China's repression of its citizens. That includes news providers, Microsoft, etc. Google might get a teensy bit of extra opprobrium on account of their sanctimony about not being evil.

And yet you favor Bush seizing Google's tracking records. Help me understand...when is it OK for a government to interfere with these companies, and when is it not?

 

[Darat]

Historically, increased economic freedom has led to demands for increased political freedom. I'm not under any illusions that Wal*Mart is doing business in China because one possible outcome is demand for increased political freedom, but I recognize that as one historically likely outcome so I hold them less blameful for collaboration (subject, of course, to them taking reasonable steps to avoid the kinds of things Nick Bogaerts referred to.

So is CNN, and any other business. But when CNN quashed stories about Iraq in order to maintain "access" to Saddam Hussein, I think that was a bad thing.

This is why I started this thread because I truthfully do not understand why it is different for Google then say Walmart (or any other western company that has to comply with Chinese demands).

What is the difference?

 

[aerocontrols]

And yet you favor Bush seizing Google's tracking records.

No, he doesn't.

I object to the government's request in this matter and I hope they lose their court case.

It's quite simple, really.

 

[Manny]

And yet you favor Bush seizing Google's tracking records. Help me understand...when is it OK for a government to interfere with these companies, and when is it not?

I said that I oppose that, Mark.

 

[Darat]

As the thread starter I ask we stick to the topic I started in the OP and not drag in discussions that may have been taken place in other threads. - Thanks

 

[Mark]

I said that I oppose that, Mark.

Actually, I admit you said you opposed what the government was doing, but you also said you applaud the way their attorneys are going about it.

However, if I misunderstood your point, I sincerely apologize and withdraw the question. I'm still confused, though. How can you applaud what there attorneys are doing yet oppose what they are trying to accomplish?

 

[Mark]

As the thread starter I ask we stick the topic I started in the OP and not drag in discussions that may have been taken place in other threads. - Thanks

Rebuke accepted.

 

[aerocontrols]

This is why I started this thread because I truthfully do not understand why it is different for Google then say Walmart (or any other western company that has to comply with Chinese demands).

What is the difference?

I think it has to do with aiding the instruments of oppression.

Selling them food is better than

buying their widgets is better than

selling them a service which includes censorship is better than

selling them weapons.



As for the difference between google complying with an EU directive vs. complying with a Chinese govt. directive, I at least consider that EU directives generally have the consent of the governed, and the people in the EU have the power to change EU directives via the democratic process.

 

[Darat]

I think it has to do with aiding the instruments of oppression.

Selling them food is better than

buying their widgets is better than

selling them a service which includes censorship is better than

selling them weapons.

OK that's your "ladder of betterness" I can understand you have that but I don't see how you are assigning the better value to each step. I can understand the first one because we can argue that it means people don't starve but after that I don't understand it. (Especially in the case of Google since Google has nothing to do with "free speech" and "anti-censorship" all Google is is a commercial organisation that returns search results to make money.)

As for the difference between google complying with an EU directive vs. complying with a Chinese govt. directive, I at least consider that EU directives generally have the consent of the governed, and the people in the EU have the power to change EU directives via the democratic process.

Lots of people in the EU would disagree with that but I understand your point.

 

[Mycroft]

Uhm, it's wrong because cutting edge computer types are not supposed to operate like other businesses. They’re not supposed to be profit driven, but driven by ideals. They’re champions of the free exchange of information, open source code, sticking it to the man, and very VERY anti 1984.

 

[punchdrunk]

I think the lesson here is, if there were anyway that Google could make money from giving the US government its search records, it would have turned them over.

(If this is a derail, I'm sorry.)