Google grows a pair, tells China to shove it

[Stormwatch]

Google will quit China unless web censorship ends

In a surprise announcement, the group issued a veiled attack at Chinese censors and said it was prepared to shut down its operations there entirely if the authorities do not allow it to create an unfiltered search engine.

The company courted controversy in 2006 when it launched in China but, as a concession to the Communist government, agreed to filter the results available on its website for "inappropriate" content. It does not operate such filters in other major countries.

In a blog on the company's website, its corporate development and chief legal officer, David Drummond, said Google did so then because of the “benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet”. However, he said a number of recent cyber attacks – apparently targeting human rights activists – and recent clampdowns on freedom of speech on the web "have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China."

"We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn... and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China."

sauce

[doctorx0079]

Wow, it might actually be time to end my boycott and switch from ask.com . Never thought that would happen.

[UnscathedFlyingObject]

I don't think China cares as much as Google operating there as Google cares about operating there. China is protective of their industries so good riddance to the dirty foreigners after they finish profiting off them and getting their tech.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yeah, gg @ Google for once.

Lately I have been very much not impressed with China's handling of political issues (the one that really made my blood boil was China's deliberate sinking of the Copenhagen climate summit and intentionally embarrassing President Obama, who should have told their envoy to go get his fuckin' shinebox one of the many times he excused himself to waste the delegates' time in phone calls). In this case, either China has done a poor job of preventing blatantly illegal activities originating in their country despite all the press about the Golden Shield Project, or (what everybody thinks is the case) they are directly sponsoring activities that blatantly flaunt the sovereignty of other countries and established etiquette. Of course, China won't budge because only the government's political interests come before the promotion of stability.

[Skykid]

China really doesn't care about Google. Google, to quote BBC news tonight "literally didn't make much money there," and are throwing their toys out of their pram over it.
They've threatened to pull the search engine unless they get the removal of filtering, but frankly, they're desperate to capitalise on the huge number of growing internet users in the country and pissed off that the growth isn't what they wanted. I reckon the Chinese just consider it another billion dollar corporation trying to make gains out of the Chinese population - which is exactly what it is.
I've got no sympathy for the plights of such corporations. If Google aren't happy, then Google can go off somewhere else and pilfer money out of the rest of the globe.

a blog on the company's website

God, such hyperbole. Seriously, if things carry on like this, somebody's gonna get bombed - and at this point I couldn't say who for sure.

[neorichieb1971]

I don't think its a good idea for google to piss off China. Its not a good idea for anyone to piss off China. Could be bad for US chinese relations to say the least. The biggest decision is already passed, and that is whether or not it was advisable to go into China in the first place.

[Skykid]

I don't think its a good idea for google to piss off China. Its not a good idea for anyone to piss off China. Could be bad for US chinese relations to say the least.

I honestly don't think they can help themselves. The US quite rightly consider them a threat because of the growth in economy and power. It's pretty plain for everyone to see.
The thing is that the western (not restricted to the US) propaganda system has already started to manipulate public opinion. It's utterly crude, but this is the world we live in.
Knives in backs and all that.

The Jack Cafferty 'goons and thugs' report gave me a good chuckle - half the shit that asshole owns is probably made in China.

But it works, google 'don't buy Chinese goods' or something similar and you'll see what I mean: Lots of proud capitalist citizens boycotting Chinese goods and sending the word out like it was some kind of biblical message. We're like autonomous drones to media coverage, it's bizarre.
Fact is, it was fine to leech off of peasants making plastic dildo's in corrugated huts for decades so that western corporations could line their pockets with gold, but when they finally enter the world trade union and start making some money for themselves, suddenly we see a massive shift in public opinion.

When it comes to the western media, I ain't buyin' what they're selling.

[Ed Oscuro]

Man, I remember when people from the UK actually stood for human rights...wait you guys are just letting China roll you because you feel guilty about colonialism, o rite

Look, China is illegally attacking Google's networks, the United States' networks, those of countless opposition movements (Falun Gong, Dalai Lama, Uighur groups, and the other usual suspects, all ingrates most dastardly I'm sure) and yes, your government as well. They are playing dirty and don't give a fuck.

If this were about climate change (which I also support) I'm sure most people here would readily see that a company like Google making its own statement on an important issue, even if it won't have much actual influence, is appropriately bringing to bear the limited influence they can on the issue. I see this as exactly the same.

Yes, Google does give the appearance of acquiescing to China's demands, but I think it was more than fair for them to start off by giving China a chance to play by the standards of international decency while they conducted their business. Edit: And a quick skimming of the blog post Skykid linked demonstrated they said this at the time (as I remember), proving this is spouting off without knowing what the facts are. Quickly:

At the time we made clear that "we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China."

Would we call a company that made farm tractors "opportunist" for selling them to Russia in 1921 but then pulling out later for political reasons? Especially if Russia was somehow using said tractors to attack the country where the tractor company was headquartered.

Bluntly, get your heads out of your asses in time to see what China is planning to stick in there.

Fact is, it was fine to leech off of peasants making plastic dildo's in corrugated huts for decades so that western corporations could line their pockets with gold, but when they finally enter the world trade union and start making some money for themselves, suddenly we see a massive shift in public opinion.

Don't be a tit. China owns a massive amount of the United States' public debt - between Japan and China, fully 44% of it. Everybody in China was very happy for the prosperity their exports brought, but you didn't see the Chinese government standing on principle and preventing their own corporations from being horrible polluters. Incidentally, Western-owned companies in mainland China generally pollute less than their native counterparts, but the Chinese government has banged the "economic colonialism" and "pollution offshoring" drums despite their having expressly allowed it. We didn't see China allowing their purchasing power to rise by letting the yuan's value appreciate; they kept their exports as cheap as possible. Basically, they have had as much to do with crushing overseas industries through not caring about pollution and through currency manipulation as any Western company has had for seeing the cheap labor. I have nothing against the Chinese worker, but they aren't as efficient an economy as most others by far. Ironically China uses this as an argument to keep being an horribly inefficient country in the modern world under the guise of being a "developing nation." I don't even want to get into the blatant theft of Western intellectual and scientific property that has been going on in China even recently.

Nobody outside investors has been traditionally very happy with China destroying other industries, although that is a natural progression (when left unchecked). Knowing as much as we do about economics now there's no reason to push old and wrong ideas just for "fairness?" Should China be able to make all the same mistakes as Western countries even though we know better now? Seeing per-capita car ownership rates reach the same proportions in China as in the U.S. would be massively humorous in a country of 1.4 billion people, for example.

The one thing I can agree with you on is that people are always looking out for number one and don't like it when their jobs go elsewhere. But in this case, the benefits of going to China are turning out to be far less than people used to think because of all the externalities (in strict economic terms), like pollution.

[Skykid]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but there's still a blatant persecution of the Chinese thats being proliferated in the west, and it doesn't necessarily focus on the most pertinent points (like issues of pollution.) instead there's an obvious secondary, and largely unfavourable agenda.

I would agree the wealth of the government doesn't reflect the wealth of the Chinese population, but I wouldn't say that promoting themselves as a developing country is a 'guise'. It is a developing country, and one in a rapid state. It'll take more than a few years to change the way the population live and the way the government operate.
Even though you're more than knowledgeable Ed, I still get the feeling you're buying what unreliable news sources are shovelling, especially with comments regarding stances on human rights. The amount of times I hear those two words being mentioned in association with China reminds me of years worth of 'terrorism' and 'Al Qaeda' force feeding.

I'm not interested in the Google statement for a minute - it's beautifully written and beautifully vague. When the headline news turns up stating which important organisations were specifically attacked or compromised, for what reason and by whom, and the severity of the attacks and the action being taken, it's nothing but worthless, speculative information. Google can go and have a cry for all i care.

Would we call a company that made farm tractors "opportunist" for selling them to Russia in 1921 but then pulling out later for political reasons? Especially if Russia was somehow using said tractors to attack the country where the tractor company was headquartered.

Doesn't that scenario sound painfully familiar?

[EPS21]

Yeah I'm not so sure it's google "growing a pair," more so as skykid already explained them not being profitable there, and so this is little more than a PR boost for google in the west, perhaps to ameliorate growing concerns for google not giving a shit about your privacy . Yet google initially decided to go along with China's censorship policy, and now all of a sudden they're deciding to pull out on a moral basis? Sounds like bullshit to me.

[Khan]

i will sum up my opinion,

FUCK GOOGLE

have a nice day

Khan,

[Ganelon]

It's funny how some just take the news at face value, which means the marketing folks at Google did their job. Here's what I've said (and what a few folks already touched upon):

This is good PR but may actually be a veiled opportunistic business exit after years of Google failing to establish any foothold in the Chinese search engine market against Baidu.

And this is actually the response that the Chinese government dreamed for. Now that Google has disappeared, it has justified reason to block all of Google without hesitation.

[Ed Oscuro]

It's funny how some think the usual cynical "it's a corporation so it must be purely evil" is a replacement for knowing the facts. I've been following this since the original announcement they would be filtering their news results in China, and the reality bears only the slightest resemblance to the uninformed imaginings of some of our members. "Reading between the lines" =/= making up shit because you want to stick it to THE MAN, the New World Order, business illuminati, Masons, et. cetera, et. cetera.

[Ex-Cyber]

Rumor has it that what's really going on behind the scenes is that Google's China branch was targeted for industrial espionage. That wouldn't surprise me at all, but it really just seems like speculation at this point rather than real info being leaked.

It's funny how some think the usual cynical "it's a corporation so it must be purely evil" is a replacement for knowing the facts.

While I don't think corporations are actually evil, I think it's fair to say that as organizations they tend toward being amoral as they get larger. "Good" actions usually reduce to PR motivations or following the law / avoiding lawsuits. What's funny to me is that Google is singled out as "not caring about privacy", yet I've never seen anyone offer serious alternatives with credibly superior attitudes about customer privacy. People who boycott Google seem to settle for "not Google".

I'm more concerned about abuse by my ISP (an entrenched monopoly that now owns a majority stake in a major media company) than by Google.

[Skykid]

It's funny how some think the usual cynical "it's a corporation so it must be purely evil" is a replacement for knowing the facts. I've been following this since the original announcement they would be filtering their news results in China, and the reality bears only the slightest resemblance to the uninformed imaginings of some of our members. "Reading between the lines" =/= making up shit because you want to stick it to THE MAN, the New World Order, business illuminati, Masons, et. cetera, et. cetera.

It's got nothing to do with that Ed, perhaps you're not cynical enough. China's manipulation of their own currency was nothing but beneficial to the long term growth of the country. It would be nice to start seeing that filter in more rapidly to the population, but you can't massively inflate wages overnight. Better pay and jobs have increased there, and the amount of rebuilding work is incredible.
Besides, do they really owe anything to the further development of western industries anyway? Haven't they contributed to that cause for long enough? It pays to remember that despite using capitalist methods of business, it's still a communist government, which means they'll operate by means of their choosing and not by means which conform to other countries ideals. That may be a bit of an alien concept to people who have lived their whole lives by so-called democracy and MTV.
This isn't a case of conspiracy theories. It's no more a fantasy than the attempts to excise Tibet and Taiwan is legitimate pursuit by the west to 'liberate'.

[Ganelon]

It's funny how some think the usual cynical "it's a corporation so it must be purely evil" is a replacement for knowing the facts.

My bad, please continue to enjoy your stay in fantasyland. Did you hear that Mark McGwire just recently admitted to using steroids? And after we trusted his promises for so long...

[Ed Oscuro]

Besides, do they really owe anything to the further development of western industries anyway?

They seem to think that they're owed something from western industrialized countries, given that they have bought up so much debt (of course, they have said they're owed something explicitly as well). How do you think they suppose they'll be able to retain value in those debt investments if they're the only ones exporting anything due to their massively undervalued yuan?

Yes, inflation and other issues are going to be a bitch for China to control if other countries start pushing back more strongly against market flooding. Maybe somebody should have thought about that beforehand.

That may be a bit of an alien concept to people who have lived their whole lives by so-called democracy and MTV.

Now you're just being an idiot. I don't watch TV; which you should have easily inferred from my post count here They moved to open their own markets under Deng Xiaoping in the 70s because they didn't want to follow the Russians into ruin, and it worked. However, they would be naive to think that Western countries want to fund China's development (which is the reality, the exact reverse of what you claimed) when not only is that harming domestic industries but also world ecology and climate. We live in the 21st century and the same sorts of pollution controlling technologies available to western industrial nations is available to Chinese industries.

It's no more a fantasy than the attempts to excise Tibet and Taiwan is legitimate pursuit by the west to 'liberate'.

I take this as a sign that you aren't as knowledgeable as you think you are when you have to rush into irrelevant territory in an attempt to paint me as a naive idealist, instead of being able to stick to the discussion at hand and discuss the relevant subject matter. I don't particularly follow along with the "Free Tibet" crowd, it's regrettable but we have to deal with nations as they are and not as they wish to be. Ditto Taiwanese independence / the Hong Kong SAR - areas which certainly have appreciated America's and Britain's support, but obviously I'm not in favor of rushing in to cause mischief. I agree with the same goal that China often professes of maintaining stability for people. Part of the reason that I have been so disappointed with a few of China's actions as of late is that they were a mildly positive example (with some caveats) from the time we bombed (with an asterisk) their embassy in Kosovo, through providing international opposition through much of Bush's term. Often their and Russia's providing a counterpoint was ultimately positive.

That brings me back to the main topic of whether Google is wrong to put business (and Chinese internet users' access to better Internet resources, in case anybody was actually reading the articles) alongside diplomacy.

In case any of you were paying attention, plainly putting business considerations in charge of politics has been a staple of not just Chinese but Russian opposition to sanctions and many other movements the international community. I wouldn't condemn this in principle, but sometimes it has been taken as a license to ignore reasonable expectations at promoting good governance and confronting dangerous regimes. Most recently this has all been wrapped up under the banner of "respecting sovereignty." China has been happy (and needs) to move their oil companies into Iraq and other mining operations into Africa and Latin America, and both China and Russia have arguably seen some profit selling arms to various nations. If I had to choose between saying "let's not do business for the sake of principle" and "let's forsake principle to sell arms and grab resources on the cheap from countries with corrupt governments," why is it that the first one provokes the most apparent criticism?

It's funny how some think the usual cynical "it's a corporation so it must be purely evil" is a replacement for knowing the facts.

My bad, please continue to enjoy your stay in fantasyland. Did you hear that Mark McGwire just recently admitted to using steroids? And after we trusted his promises for so long...

Good job not referencing facts or staying on topic, there. You totally got my respect, man.

[Skykid]

It's no more a fantasy than the attempts to excise Tibet and Taiwan is legitimate pursuit by the west to 'liberate'.

I take this as a sign that you aren't as knowledgeable as you think you are when you have to rush into irrelevant territory in an attempt to paint me as a naive idealist, instead of being able to stick to the discussion at hand and discuss the relevant subject matter.

...(and just a few posts earlier:)

Incidentally, Western-owned companies in mainland China generally pollute less than their native counterparts, but the Chinese government has banged the "economic colonialism" and "pollution offshoring" drums despite their having expressly allowed it. We didn't see China allowing their purchasing power to rise by letting the yuan's value appreciate; they kept their exports as cheap as possible.

ah, 'Incedentally' - That's the word I forgot wasn't it? Next time I want to add something irrelevant I'll remember to use it.

[EPS21]

I've been a big fan of google for years, it's not a matter of "lol let's rebel against big corporations xD," I'm completely fine using their applications because unlike most other big software corporations like MS, google's stuff is pretty good. And because of that, they've become very popular entirely through word of mouth, but now that they're enjoying their seat as the king of internet technology, its only natural to abuse that power. So then when you hear a story like this, does anyone honestly think its purely just them being in good faith? If this filtering was just the "slightest resemblance" of what we think it is, then why would it even have been an issue in the first place, and brought up again now by google as grounds for quitting their operations there?

Getting a little too conspiracy tinfoil hat in here, but you could say google made up this story in the first place, and orchestrated this convenient excuse should they have failed there. That would imply China didn't filter anything at all initially, which is equally as unlikely.

[Ed Oscuro]

Getting a little too conspiracy tinfoil hat in here, but you could say google made up this story in the first place, and orchestrated this convenient excuse should they have failed there.

You could think that but that would mean you were completely oblivious to the existence of the Green Dam Youth Escort (edit: I didn't realize it, but ironically China gave up on the principle and decided to drop the requirement it be installed; I'm guessing Lenovo and other domestic makers were complaining), the Golden Shield Project, and the wide number of allegations from various organizations, governmental and otherwise, that hackers are operating with impunity from China and targeting computers and networks in other nations with clearly sophisticated software - leading to a rather straightforward assessment that their military and other organizations are already conducting cyber warfare on people they don't like. Mainly it seems to be attempting to grab secrets or find dirt on people they don't like (the Tibetan government in exile and related movements are apparently a popular target, as I mentioned before).

As for failing there, I think there's a difference between not turning wild profits and giving up. Google has enough of a war chest to patiently wait for an investment to ripen, exactly as Microsoft wasn't worried about losing money overall on the original Xbox. If this is the straightforward reading of how Google is thought to be operating (and thank you for stating it clearly and concisely), it is based on a lack of understanding of a few points.

[BulletMagnet]

Rumor has it that what's really going on behind the scenes is that Google's China branch was targeted for industrial espionage.

This is what I'd read as well - supposedly there was an attempt to hack into Google's database, ostensibly to obtain the GMail addresses of certain dissidents, and while nobody can confirm who was behind it, suspicions are aimed largely at the Chinese government, with good reason imo. They've done a lot worse than that with a straight face.

In any event, as far as I'm concerned anyone who's truly concerned with human rights probably shouldn't be affiliated with China's government in any fashion to begin with - I think it's pretty obvious by now that they're going to do whatever they damn well please in terms of controlling information and quelling dissent no matter what anyone else thinks or does. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if an out-and-out cyber-attack would be what it took to get Google to realize (or at least admit to themselves) that China cares just as little about their concerns as those of its own people. And naturally, it has the ability to throw a much more public tantrum about it.

[Ganelon]

There are a bit too many reports of Chinese hackers infiltrating left and right. It's pretty obvious to everyone they're nosing their way into anything relevant they can. I'm pretty sure every country tries some espionage (after all, it was taken for granted during the Cold War) but China's hacking has been too widespread and/or dirty to be kept under wraps.

Anyway, it's not clear how Google would've done. I remember telling people about Google back around 2000 and it took years before it finally overtook Yahoo!, AOL, MSN, AltaVista, and a host of pretenders. But consider this: Baidu currently has a larger market share in China than Google does in the US. Granted, there's less competition but that just illustrates how little headway Google has made there, even though it generated plenty of publicity acquiescing to the government's demands early on.

I think a good analogy is the 360 in Japan; it has a low yet non-trivial market share compared to the PS3 but does anyone see it taking over? Granted, the culture is more accepting of foreign goods but that's still a large cultural and linguistic hurdle to overcome. But it's not like Google is explicitly claiming itself as a moral champion, just that people are gullible enough to interpret the news that way.

[Skykid]

anyone who's truly concerned with human rights probably shouldn't be affiliated with China's government in any fashion to begin with - I think it's pretty obvious by now that they're going to do whatever they damn well please in terms of controlling information and quelling dissent no matter what anyone else thinks or does.

Just about sums this entire thread up for me. Well done Murdoch, you old bastard.

Now you're just being an idiot.

That's really rude Ed - I wasn't insinuating you were a dumbass couch potato who sucks up and regurgitates erroneous news reports - it was a generalisation regarding the unavoidable influences of capitalist, supposedly democratic societies.

I do accept that tone is often lost in words though.

[Ed Oscuro]

Now you're just being an idiot.

That's really rude Ed - I wasn't insinuating you were a dumbass couch potato who sucks up and regurgitates erroneous news reports - it was a generalisation regarding the unavoidable influences of capitalist, supposedly democratic societies.

I do accept that tone is often lost in words though.

Thus sprach the guy editing the quote field. Yeah, I'm sure it was just "an accident" that you were addressing that "generalization" (how is that an improvement?) to me.

In any case, think twice before you start slamming other countries without having any facts to go on. I'll appreciate any legitimate criticisms of the US - if they're warranted. Your hyperbole and nonsense in this thread didn't really move the discussion in a positive direction.

Also, if you want a "truly" democratic society you could move to Switzerland where even the teachers stand for election. It's a fine country, but they have a unique situation. They virtually live under EU regulations as they are by far a net exporter, yet it would serve most other countries extremely poorly to have to live with regulations made by other people and which they themselves can't influence (which is much the situation in Switzerland).

Globalization, can't live without it.

[Skykid]

Now you're just being an idiot.

That's really rude Ed - I wasn't insinuating you were a dumbass couch potato who sucks up and regurgitates erroneous news reports - it was a generalisation regarding the unavoidable influences of capitalist, supposedly democratic societies.

I do accept that tone is often lost in words though.

Thus sprach the guy editing the quote field. Yeah, I'm sure it was just "an accident" that you were addressing that "generalization" (how is that an improvement?) to me.

What?! For fuck's sake man, can't you tell when someone is trying to patch things up? I was only trying to say I hadn't insinuated that the comment was aimed at you in particular.

I seem to run up against your flagrant pig-headedness all the time - it's impossible for you to see past your over-inflated bullshit and you can't seem to help but turn everything into some kind of a rampage where you have to resort to calling people 'tits' and 'idiots'.

Not very nice.

[doctorx0079]

Thread seems lock-worthy but I'm wondering if it will actually happen. I'm sure this thread is being watched with interest by certain parties.

[Stormwatch]

I'm sure this thread is being watched with interest by certain parties.

Like, the communist one?

[Specineff]

The Baidu robot is actually browsing the forum.

*Waves with a single digit* Hello, comrades! Qu da ne! ,,i,, ^_^ ,,i,,

[Ed Oscuro]

I seem to run up against your flagrant pig-headedness all the time - it's impossible for you to see past your over-inflated bullshit and you can't seem to help but turn everything into some kind of a rampage where you have to resort to calling people 'tits' and 'idiots'.

Not very nice.

It's kind of hard to "patch things up" when this is simmering under the surface of all your ill-considered comments. If only I could believe that claim.

[szycag]

generalizing someone's views by their country of origin is typically more of a kick in the nuts than what you meant when you said it.