Google Agrees to Censor Results in China

Google Inc. launched a search engine in China on Wednesday that censors material about human rights, Tibet and other topics sensitive to Beijing _ defending the move as a trade-off granting Chinese greater access to other information.

Within minutes of the launch of the new site bearing China's Web suffix ".cn," searches for the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement showed scores of sites omitted and users directed to articles condemning the group posted on Chinese government Web sites.

Searches for other sensitive subjects such as exiled Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama, Taiwan independence, and terms such as "democracy" and "human rights" yielded similar results.

MORE

All I have to say is BAD DECISION GOOGLE. :angry:

Its all about the $$.

This way, Google is able to stay competitive (or, if not competitive, at least theyre still there) in a massive new market. :shrug: Makes sense from a business standpoint. Just like fighting the US Government in favor of consumer privacy makes sense in the US market.

Google is not a human rights organisation. It is a business. It does what it chooses. It is not obliged to uphold democracy and freedom of speech.

How ironic, Yankee pinkos condemning Chinese capitalism.

At the end of the day, Google accepting these changes just makes it easier for Chinese people to find (accidentally or deliberately) websites with links to "illegal" material, but not actually discussing it themselves, anyway. If google refused, they would just remain blocked, as most likely most other large search engines have been, and in the end, people would only ever get to view sites they heard about from other people or from actually Chinese Government search engines.

We don't just want China to be more capitalistic. We want it to be more democratic as well. Human rights are different over there. I don't like the move but at least there is a larger world out there. I'm sure the govt can't block everything.

http://www.google.cn/

I guess it just blocks stuff for those who are in China because...well,

Do you mean you want it to become more democratic, or do you mean you want it to become more libertarian? I only ask because it's a frequent sticking point in my political beliefs (I'm a strong Monarchist) that people seem to associate non-elected Governments with corrupt and tyrannical Governments bent on oppression. I'm not saying I support the Chinese Government, heck I hate Communism, and I'm definitely no supporter of their 1984-style rewriting of history. It just touches a spot when people seem to automatically describe democracy as the shining, glorious state of enlightenment we should all aspire to reach, and by extension, denounce all other forms of Government as wrong and perhaps even evil in many ways, simply because they are not democracy.

Interesting point. I agree other forms can work, but the problem I usually have is that they may work at first, but what happens when you get an incompetant or evil despot who comes to power. I do regard democracy (more specifically republicanism) to be a glorious thing and ultimately the best way to ensure freedom, etc.

Are you calling me a pinko? And I don't care if its a business. I don't feel compelled to simply shrug it off because it's "just a buisness."

Are you? You seem to be confusing business and enterprise with government and politics.

Google is a business. I don't care whether you think it should be more than a business or not. It IS just a business. Nothing more. If it becomes something other than a business, there is something wrong.

If you think Google should be something other than a business, then yes, I'm calling you a pinko. Or red.

That's why I don't believe in absolute Monarchy B) I can see the values in democracy and so on, but I find it impossible due to its factionalism - the country becomes backwards through each party simply reversing what the previous one did deliberately.

But yeah. Back to the Google debate.

Google sells out
By Jay Ambrose
Published January 30, 2006

Google sometimes seems like half my life. I start my days looking at Google News on the Internet, and often spend hours using the Google search engine to learn more about subjects I am going to write about. Little did I know I was dancing with the devil.

It's true. For the sake of this very rich company getting still richer, Google has agreed to collaborate with China in subverting the Internet's promise as an extraordinary means of liberation and in keeping the Chinese people subjugated.

More specifically, it is reported, Google will practice Chinese-style censorship, ensuring none of the 100 million Web surfers in China can use Google to find anything by typing in such words as "democracy" or "human rights," or by trying to locate nongovernment information on such topics as Tibetan freedom, Taiwan independence, the Falun Gong religion or atrocities committed by their own officials.

For thus blocking entry to more Web sites than there probably are books in a dozen major libraries, as well as pulling the trigger on blogging and e-mail, Google gets a grin, a handshake and a have-at-it agreement from Chinese autocrats who previously tried to censor the search engine themselves.

Now Google will do financial battle in this major Internet market -- second only to the United States --with Yahoo, Microsoft and Chinese firms as it tries to stack more money on its already accumulated Everest-high pile. As columnist Thomas Lipscomb has reported, Google's stock is valued in excess of $80 billion, more than that of the entire newspaper industry.

All this means it's time to make excuses, and they have not been long in coming.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin, as quoted in a Reuters news accounts, says he "came to the conclusion that more information is better, even if it is not as full as we would like to see." No longer must Google confront "the Great Firewall" of censorship erected by Chinese officials, he said.

"France and Germany require censorship for Nazi sites," he is also quoted as observing, "and the U.S. requires censorship based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. These various countries also have laws on child pornography."

Yes, the best can sometimes be enemy of the good, as Mr. Brin suggests, but leaders of these high-tech companies offer China something it needs, and by standing firm, by being tough, could conceivably have bent China more toward responsible, civilized behavior as it moves ahead to superpower status.

Google -- along with Yahoo and Microsoft -- is abetting a crime against humanity while making it seem more or less OK.

The agreement to keep French and German Internet users from Nazi sites is a regrettable abridgement of free inquiry, but does not begin to compare to siding with some of the world's most devoted enemies of freedom in their iniquitous mission.

As for calling the protection of copyrighted movies and music censorship, that's blather, and to liken laws prohibiting child pornography to what the Chinese are doing is laughable.

Google's motto, as any number of news accounts and commentaries have noted, is, "Don't Be Evil." That's not exactly the world's highest standard. It's about like saying a new mother's chief obligation is not to throw her baby out a second-story window. The startling fact is Google now has done something evil, has tossed the baby out the window, and has put itself in a position of doing greater evil.

Yahoo -- which had earlier made Google-style compromises -- says it was just going along with Chinese laws when it helped identify a Chinese journalist who had written an e-mail about the Tiananmen Square revolt of 1989. For that deed, the journalist is spending 10 years in prison.

I am among those who have argued the Internet could be the most powerful instrument since the printing press in disseminating information and ideas that will empower and free people. But I left out of the calculation the need for corporate officers to cling to their integrity, no matter how much the almighty dollar tugs at them.

I haven't given up hope. I still believe in the Internet. That belief would be strengthened if Google became a respectable dancing partner by renouncing its China deal.

---

@mib

I still don't understand why that would make me a pinko. If its "just business" for a corporation to kill minorities I'm not going to shrug and say "oh well." I'm not saying the government should step in, I'm saying Google may a poor business decision. After all, I don't think it should be "just business" when a country like China is involved and we're talking about censorship.

Am I obligated to agree with their "business" decision? I think not.

We don't condemn Chinese capitalism. We realise that Chinese Capitalism will one day bring down the Chinese government. We condemn the Chinese commies.

And who you callin' a Yankee?

So, what minority has Google killed off? Name one, please? Oh, I know... damn those commies have been up to no good... killing innocent insertminorityhere by censoring websites...

And no, you certainly don't have to agree with their business practices, but you certainly shouldn't be criticising Google as if it has an obligation to put morals before profits. It's a business, and making money is what businesses do. They do nothing else. They should do nothing else.

Chinese capitalism will bring down the Chinese government? Then they must either be extremely stupid or extremely confident to allow a degree of economic liberalisation that makes those protectionist American politicians that dominate the country look like a bunch of commies straight from Mother Russia.

Condemn the Chinese commies all you want, 'cos there ain't any left... ;)

Are you not Yankee? I'm using it from the international perspective. I'll say Dixie if you want.

If you say so, MIB, it must be true.

Ahh! Understood, now. Although I live in the north, I spent 20 years in the south, and regard myself as more of a Southerner than a Northerner. I vote like it, too.

Do I detect a trace of sarcasm there? ;)

From who? Me? :rolleyes: