Say Anything Blog

Rob, I still just don’t see the big deal.  Google’s options were to either conform to China’s policy, or not do business at all.  What would you have them do?

The problem isn’t with Google, the problem is the Chinese government.

The big deal is that when you choose to do business with an oppressive regime like China’s you grant that regime and its tactics legitimacy.  However grudgingly Google is doing this, by agreeing to the Chinese government’s demands they lend their support to the censorship taking place.

As an example, earlier this year Condi Rice said that for sixty years America has supported stability at the expense of democracy, and that we aren’t going to do that any more.  That’s the same frame of mind I bring to this.  Google shouldn’t support the spread of their service to China (a/k/a getting more profits, not that there’s anything normally wrong with that) at the expense of their “we don’t censor” ideals.

I love Google.  I am, and will remain, an avid user of their products...but this decision is a stinker.

On a totally unrelated note, do you need to fix your Gravatar?  It doesn’t show up for me…

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Good points.

On a totally unrelated note, do you need to fix your Gravatar? It doesn’t show up for me…

Yeah, I’ve been meaning to do that for quite some time now, but just haven’t got around to it yet.

[...] Say Anything has posted a cached version of Google’s censor policy. Why? Because Google has since removed the page from their site. Ironically, it was found using their own cache. [...]

Google has shown that it’s committment to freedom, civil rights, and even “not being evil” is subservient to it’s greed for cold hard cash.  Which is fine i guess, so long as you’re up front about it.  Just stop the silly self-righteous act—if you’re going to be a hypocrite, be a PROUD one.

I’m starting to understand though, why google would protect the pornographers who use their tool to illegally reach children.  Shutting them off (or even helping the government enforce the law) would just cut into their revenues too badly.

“Don’t be evil” my ass.  Just fork over the dough and you can do whatever the hell you like.

Not to brag, but I scooped you by three hours.  More screen captures of the disappearing caches here.

Rob, I still just don’t see the big deal. Google’s options were to either conform to China’s policy, or not do business at all. What would you have them do?

Uh, not do business at all (with China). Seems simple enough. I mean, if I were building an international business, I’d be rightly tempted to do business in China, too. But I wouldn’t list a sanctimonious “do no evil” pledge among my core values, either.

Come on.  Standing up to the U.S. Government gets you good press.  Standing up to the Chinese Government gets you lost profits. 

Take to blinders off.

I use clusty.com or vivisimo.com damn good clustering search engines. Google is a bunch of liberals who think they know best.

I don’t think I’d give google too much credit in the “protecting privacy” department. I’d tend to think it was “protecting trade secrets” that had them kicking more than anything.

Here is the problem--Google’s business is information.  Google has not compromised only its principles in order to sell its product in China--it has compromised its product.  It’s a kind of rot: instead of developing great technology to deliver the best possible search results, Google engineers are working to develop great technology to screen out the best possible search results.  Even if across the hall some other engineers are perfecting the Google page ranking technology, you have to imagine they are wondering what’s going on with their colleagues and how their technology will be subverted and, anyway, a certain esprit de corps will be lacking.  It’s like you are in the NFL and you intentionally throw some games, perhaps to control which team you will play in the first round of the playoffs.  It becomes very diffficult to win after doing something like that, I think.  You see what I mean? 

I’m not one to get all hot and bothered and take out my anxiety about life on Google (or perhaps I am) but I do sense there’s something wrong here and Google will pay for it.

Guys, for the love of God, get a grip. Google already censored search results in both Germany and France, in accordance to federal laws banning anti-semitic and neo-Nazi material.

not that I’m trying to compare France and Germany with China, but Google’s agreement with the latter is nothing new to the company’s ethics or anything like that.

perhaps having google operate in china is a good thing. if the censorship isn’t 100% effective, how can the authorities keep up? won’t enterprising young hackers be able to subvert the censors? i’m thinking, “heck yeah!”
the cat might be out of the bag over there in china, in spite of everything they try. i’m skeptical that the chinese government will be able to maintain such a censorship regime.
mg

For those who ask what’s the big deal, read this from Rebecca MacKinnon who spoke about the issue on PBS’s News Hour: 

...what is a great concern is every time another company goes and complies with censorship internally and agrees to have their own employees doing this kind of censorship, it institutionalizes censorship; it legitimizes it; it creates a business and management model for censorship within these types of Internet service companies that, you know, there is some concern that if they’re doing it for the Chinese market, might that also—might that model also increasingly be applied elsewhere?

And I would add that elsewhere might be right here at home. Maybe you have not noticed but our present government likes to keep things secret and likes to snoop. Read this from Bob Barr.

[...] Google still doesn’t get to claim any moral high ground here, as far as I’m concerned.  On one hand they’re willing to oppose our government’s demand for their records, which I applaud them for.  On the other hand, they’re perfectly willing to bend to another government’s demand for the suppression of certain types of information. [...]

Andrew said:

“Rob, I still just don’t see the big deal. Google’s options were to either conform to China’s policy, or not do business at all. What would you have them do?”

The problem is Google capitulated to unreasonable demands in process of opening a market. The reason this demand is so unreasonable is it affects the core of the business they are in, trustworthy information dissemination. It’s the same reason that Microsoft’s favorable ratings have continued to decline. It is not just that MS OS’s are so vulnerable to viruses and the like, it’s that time and time again MS has been caught sitting on knowledge of a flaw for months before actually making a public commitment to fix it. It hurts the integrity of the company brand. Detroit (Ford, GM) still suffers from the image problem dating way back to the seventies, when their Pintos and Vegas were crap compared to the Corollas and Accords imported from Japan. The new models are probably as good (though the other half has a 99 Merc Cougar - it’s crap), but they will never be truly competitive because, in the publics POV, right or wrong, their product is still inferior.

        Google “stood up” to the U.S. government because it’s a low cost battle.  If they win, they pose as people protecting the web users’ privacy (even though it’s been reported that the case is about trade secrets, and won’t reveal Google users’ names, or any other information about users).  And if Google loses, they turn over the data, and say, well, we tried.  The lawyers are probably on salary, so little marginal cost in cash.

        But giving up China’s market will hurt their revenue growth, and thus their stock price, and thus the management’s chance for big riches.

        Slimy damn bastards.  “Don’t be evil, unless it pays well!"  I’ll look for a new default search engine.

The House of Saud Must Be Destroyed!

Agree completely with Andrew’s initial post.

Solon says, Guys, for the love of God, get a grip. Google already censored search results in both Germany and France, in accordance to federal laws banning anti-semitic and neo-Nazi material.

So pointing out one more instance of Google violating their “Google does not censor results” screed is an example of...losing one’s grip? That doesn’t follow Solon.

Lee KaNE nailed it -

It’s a kind of rot: instead of developing great technology to deliver the best possible search results, Google engineers are working to develop great technology to screen out the best possible search results.

[...] http://sayanythingblog.com/2006/01/27/go… [...]

For more on Google see:

http://www.google-watch.org/

For an excellent search engine see:

http://clusty.com/

Google could have refused to comply in any way and built a reputation in China as the search engine that everyone in the West uses but that the government won’t let them (the Chinese) have access to. So the Chinese could use various tricks to try to get to Google in order to subvert the censors. Google could have, in other words, helped be part of the subversion. Instead they kowtowed.

They have lost all the respect I once had for them. I will never again use the phrase “to google” when I mean to search for something. My new favorite search engine is Gigablast, but Clusty is pretty great too.

[...] Google has now removed the ‘we don’t censor results’ statement from their FAQ in light of their recent well-publicized deal with the ChiComs.  Posted by Ian S. in [...]

I hope everyone on this thread will take the time to read China Inc. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743257529/qid=1138473670/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-0089342-5935312?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)

Clearly a great many american companies are more than willing to sacrifice the ideal of freedom for the sake of profit.  But what seems most frightening of all is that while the communists may be “lying low” for the moment while they gain global economic dominance, they ARE still there in power, and will probably someday reclaim the iron-fisted rule that they had during the days of Mao.  We can only pray that the PEOPLE are strong enough to resist, when that finally happens.  Otherwise, we may be buying our tanks from them, when we ultimately meet them on the battlefield. 

Of course that might be something of an exaggeration—i don’t know really.  Just read the book.  It’s an important one.  And frightening.

In all honesty, I’m ambivalent about the decision itself to capitulate to Chinese demands. I do think that ultimately the presence of companies like Google is going to make information more free in total.

My problem is their inconsistent application of the “do no evil” mantra. They consider it entirely consistent with their values to withhold from the U.S. government search terms (not IP addresses, not identifying information, just search terms) that have no privacy implications whatsoever, in the name of “do no evil”. But when they see the gigantic revenue potential of our friends across the Pacific, they pay no heed to those same values, and freely compromise their own products to capitulate to draconian censorship.

Just do me a favor, Google, and drop the holier-than-thou attitude, which obviously no longer fits you. You are a profit-seeking entity, which means you will do no evil only to the extent that it doesn’t compromise shareholder value. Admit it, and move on.

I agree with your post rob, but what about all of the other companies that do business with CHina?

So pointing out one more instance of Google violating their “Google does not censor results” screed is an example of…losing one’s grip? That doesn’t follow Solon.

That’s not what I was saying. The problem is things like ”Just do me a favor, Google, and drop the holier-than-thou attitude, which obviously no longer fits you.” What amazes me is how much people seem surprised or even insulted for Google doing something it has already been doing for years.

Why the outrage only now?

Have any of you talked to any Chinese people about how they feel about this issue?

“But what seems most frightening of all is that while the communists may be “lying low” for the moment while they gain global economic dominance, they ARE still there in power, and will probably someday reclaim the iron-fisted rule that they had during the days of Mao.” This really makes me laugh.

We, the world, are caught up in a process. It’s really not so bad in China, though it is annoying sometimes. The kind of change that needs to be made within every government in the world is so profound that it cannot possibly happen fast enough to satisfy all of us. Lighten up, we observers of life need to develop the ability to observe and enjoy the process. Things are happening as they should.

I agree with your post rob, but what about all of the other companies that do business with CHina?

You should be happy that we’re doing business with China.  The communist regime there is the direct descendent of the type of socialism you advocate for, Graeme.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

In general, I think it’s a good thing we are doing business with China.  Hopefully, we won’t repeat the mistakes Carter made with South Africa, and cut off economic ties with a regime we dislike.  This just removes any possibility of us influencing that country’s behavior.  Ultimately it’s self-destructive, something that Carter was very good at.

That is a separate topic from getting into bed with Chinese censorship.

That’s a good point Carrick.  Were China isolated from the U.S. the political and military threat from that country would be enourmous.  However, the fact that their economy is so closely tied withours means they aren’t likely to attack us.

Of course, it is a very thin line to walk.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Carrick:

I didn’t hear the NPR stuff (I don’t listen to their programming much), but I found Thomas Friedman’s thoughts on the subject (and global economics in general) in his The World Is Flat to be fascinating.  If you haven’t read it I have the book saved in mp3 format on my computer.  Some of the things he said about higher education in this country made me think of some of your comments.  If you wanted to provide me with an address I’d be happy to burn you a copy of the audiobook and mail it to you.

I think it is ok to maintain economic ties with a country like China for the reasons we’ve already stated, but as I said before it is a thin line to walk.  As you said, getting in bed with their censorship policies is another matter entirely.  And never should dealings with the country translate into support for its more abhorrent practices.

Hamas, to me, is another matter entirely.  The most recent news out of Palestine has Hamas wanting to form their militants into Palestine’s army.  This is a god-awful development and I don’t think we should support them at all.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I would offer a parallel between Japan in the 23s/30s and China since Clinton granted them most favored nation status.  Japan sold cheap goods here, exchanged them for steel and attacked us on 12/7/41.

Rob, I wasn’t thinking about it from that perspective, but you’re right.

NPR’s Marketplace ran a two-week-long series on China & business two weeks ago.  One of the things that kept showing up was the moderating effects of American businesses on China.  I wish they published their transcripts online, so I could send you a URL.  Pretty fascinating stuff.

I had realized at the time (as I think did Reagan and his people) that Carter’s policies with South Africa were plain stupid.  “I’m taking my ball home ‘cause Billy doesn’t play right” strategies stop working around 4th grade. That’s the same reason that cutting off relations with Palestine in light of the Hamas victory would be fruitless.  Keeping the economic ties is the best way to earn some political capital off the current Hamas leadership position.

Rob, I desperately need to make time to read Thomas Friedman’s book.  Thank you for your kind offer.  However, I will purchase the book, and make the time to read it.

I absolutely agree with walking a delicate line.  It’s one thing to economically cooperate, another to prostitute yourself to their policies.  The Chief’s example with Japan is a good example of just how bad it can go, when a balancing act is not maintained.  Clinton blindly raising China to favored nation status removed some impetus from China to change for the good.

I am of two minds with Hamas. If we simply cut off ties, there seems to me to be only one way that things can go.  At least reserving the possibility of maintaining ties gives us the possibility of effecting a positive outcome.  As I said previously, democracy acts to moderate extreme groups, pushing them towards more centrists positions.  Isolating other countries does the opposite.

All of that in keeping with the spirit of “no appeasement of dictators”.  With former(?) terrorist thugs like Hamas (or Sinn Fein for that matter), it’s a delicate balancing act, with no guarantees of a good outcome.

On the other hand, integrating the Hamas militias into the Palestinian security forces may work in our favor.  Decentralized authority has been one of the problems with Palestinian governance since they became semiautonomous.  Time will tell. 

The nature of organizations is, when a surge of new people come in, the old guard gets diluted.  I hope this happens and is a positive thing for Hamas.  Otherwise, we’re going to have some major bloodshed down the road.

And never should dealings with the country translate into support for its more abhorrent practices

Quote of the day.  This should show up in a Bush speech. :wink:

Rob, I desperately need to make time to read Thomas Friedman’s book. Thank you for your kind offer. However, I will purchase the book, and make the time to read it.

I thought it was fantastic...until I got to the end and he started listing his plans for how to better adjust America to the new economic world.  He had all sorts of plans for subsidizing education and health care that I just don’t see as wise.  But overall its an interesting book.

You sound like me.  Never enough time to get reading done.  I’ve been so happy since discovering that iTunes has audiobooks.  My job sometimes requires me to spend quite a bit of time behind the wheel.  In the last two weeks audiobooks have let me get through three Stephen King novels that I hadn’t read before, Friedman’s book, Doris Goodwin’s Team of Rivals about Lincoln’s rise to power and the circumstances surrounding it.  Right now I’m working my way through Mark Kurlansky’s Salt: A World History.  It is ok, but it concentrates a little more on ancient recipes than the geopolitical struggles surrounding the substances, which I don’t like.  But then, I’m only halfway through so maybe it gets better.

Anyway...back to the topic at hand.

As far as Hamas is concerned, I guess I’m in a “wait and see” mode.  Frankly, if they make aggression toward Israel part of their state policy I don’t see how we can, in good conscience, maintain any sort of support or economic ties with them.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

[...] Since Google’s decision to bow to Chinese censorship demands a lot of people, including myself, have taken to criticizing the company for abandoning their stated “we don’t censor” principles.  A few others, exemplified by Jon Henke of Q and O in this post, have defended Google against this criticism. [...]

Carrick said, I am of two minds with Hamas. If we simply cut off ties, there seems to me to be only one way that things can go. At least reserving the possibility of maintaining ties gives us the possibility of effecting a positive outcome.

A situation where Hamas and “positive outcome” co-exist? As far as I am concerned, Hamas long ago sealed their fate, it is only a matter of when. I hold little hope of anything positive with that group.

[...] Another blogger, Rob at sayanythingblog.com, points out that one of the FAQs at Google has been pulled. It asked Does Google censor search results? and answered in part: …we do not manipulate our search results by hand. We believe strongly in allowing the democracy of the web to determine the inclusion and ranking of sites in our search results. [...]

I wonder if this is more an indication of which governmental style the not-so-conservative folks at Google may favor.

[...] New Site DesignGoogle Censors Old Censorship Statement30 January 2006 @ 5:37PM Google recently modified their official statement on censorship,SayAnything reports. In the wake of Google’s deal to censor content on behalf of the communist Chinese government, the self-proclaimed Don’t Be Evil company is no longer able to stand behind this statement: Google does not censor results for any search term. The order and content of our results are completely automated; we do not manipulate our search results by hand. We believe strongly in allowing the democracy of the web to determine the inclusion and ranking of sites in our search results. And with a swift deletion and a quick save, Google revises its principles. [...]

"Google’s options were to either conform to China’s policy, or not do business at all. What would you have them do?”

No evil, stupid.

Come on.  Standing up to the U.S. Government gets you good press.  Standing up to the Chinese Government gets you lost profits. 

Take to blinders off.

I love Google.  I am, and will remain, an avid user of their products...but this decision is a stinker.