digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Google admits: China censorship damaged us

business.guardian.co.uk — Google's decision to censor its search engine in China was bad for the company, its founders admitted.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jan 28, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

46 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • rm999, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Google's argument at the time was that it is better for the chinese to have *some* google instead of *no* google. I did not like this argument because, by giving in, they put no pressure on china. I lost a lot of respect for Google because they didn't even try.

    Imagine it: millions of Chinese people cannot use the most hyped, popular search engine because their government won't let them. It would put pressure on the government, and nudge them to do the right thing.
  • Champzilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10China still cool. You pay later, LATER!
  • diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Screw Google. They made the choice to get the bucks, instead of standing on principle. That is what corporations do. They now cry over getting their cherry popped. Sounds like virgins' remorse. I guess we may expect more crap from them since they lost their purity.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7google is no longer the little nerdy company of years back. everywhere i look google ads. google ads this and google ads that. get off my monitor.
  • friend18, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11What happened to you China? You used to be cool.
  • devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6yeah, I haven't seen any ads in ages. Sometimes when I have to open up IE or safari or something, I see a few, and they look really weird to me.
  • PatrickX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You can't possibly defend Google's decision by saying that "some Google is better than none"... don't you think there are plenty of other search engines in China that are also all too happy to follow along with the government's censorship in order to do business there? Google didn't benefit anyone by having a censored search in China, and it is deceptive for them or anyone else to imply that they did.
  • devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10@rm999

    I think their decision (some google over no google) was okay, as they knew they would be benefiting the people of the country somewhat , with a view to end censorship later. I think they felt that changing a superpower's policies was not their area of expertise - they're an internet services company, not a lobbyist group or political entity (though they have some power in those areas).

    That said, it's also reasonable to dislike Google's decision - I can see how you would feel that way. It's just kind of which side your bread is buttered on. I just think that China wouldn't really feel that pressure.
  • buss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@randavo: I think you are confusing censorship and secrecy. Secrecy and free speech can peacefully coexist. Censorship is meant to suppress ideas that are contrary to your own, while secrecy is to just keep something you know about private (medical history).
  • Avalontor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You have a problem concerning Microsoft. Kinda sickening don't you think. Where was Yahoo in your examples?

    What were actually trying to say, that it's all Microsoft's fault.
  • Easty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's unfortunate, but in the end, if you want to operate in the PRC, you have to follow their rules.
  • rm999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5firefox + adblock + easyelement (or filterset.g). I haven't seen a google ad on my desktop computer in over a year.
  • Servo888, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Respect > Money

    ...Google should have stayed out of China.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7welcome to 2007, where google's ads are nowadays on 1 out of 2 websites. look no further than this page.
  • tripple-breve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"It's quite simple."

    Nothing is. Ever.
  • Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2some things need to be seen in black and white. comprimise, no matter how much, is wrong. Not a general rule, but when it comes to giving in to oppressive governments, comprimise leads to further loss of rights, not gains.
  • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@denghzi
    "China owns!"

    I guess you are referrring to the U.S. debt?
  • junestag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Servo888: You're absolutely correct. Google should live up to their supposed motto about not being evil (I take censorship as evil for granted). Microsoft and Yahoo don't get the same rap because they never said they weren't evil in the first place. Hypocrisy loud and clear.

    And to everyone else out there who says companies don't have to be moral - I agree! But then they shouldn't explicitly say they aren't going to be evil...and then act contrary to that principle. That is, if they don't want to get trashed for acting that way as Google does.
  • tripple-breve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pretty funny for a company whose motto is "do no evil." Brin didn't say: "it was wrong" He said it damaged their reputation.
  • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And the rules are:

    - Make profit.
  • TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wait, Google doesn't block Google.com. 90% of Chinese that use Google do not use Google.cn but instead google.com. If they use Google.cn, they see they are missing results then they can go to google.com. It is like 90% of the time Google.com actually works over there. Google didn't do anything to hurt things. Google isn't the most popular in China and Russia and such. Local search engines are popular.

  • junestag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ya, that motto is effectively dead. I'm paranoid, it's true, but Google is getting megalomaniacal...
  • chrisjj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I see a lot of 'corporatization' and 'nationalization' of the Internet with international boundaries enforced over the IP address space. Small examples from personal experience: I can't watch the BBC UK News from the USA or get support for my imported Nokia phone in the USA). I guess Google was just following this trend towards un-democratizing the Internet by adopting the path of least resistance when in it moved into China. I think this was a wrong decision - instead Google should be working to provide uncensored portals to the Chinese via US servers. (Somewhere I heard there is a way you can 'adopt a Chinese dissident' by dedicating an always on PC to act as a proxy for Chinese web surfers.) Just as AT&T plummeted in my esteem when it permitted our government to snoop on US Citizen's calls within the USA, so my admiration for Google dropped just a little when it followed Microsoft and Yahoo into the realm of restricting free speech on the Internet.
  • junestag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@rslc: Digg bans sites? I've never seen that happen to any posts I made before. What does it say when you try to submit a banned story?
  • javabeta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think that Google is the best opportunity in China.You guys will never know how Chinese language works.
  • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Except of course, your answer.
  • mikewang80, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Firms like Google do also have social Obligations that are defined by a certain society. You can make profits, but only in conformity with my rules. Well, you must see that somewhere else...
  • inoshiro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1American companies do influence china's policies, quite a bit. the reason china is not in the same boat as the USSR today is that your government whored out its people to capitalist countries (think sweatshops) while the USSR didn't compromise on economic policy at all. Of course you would already know that if it wasn't "bad information" in your country. enjoy your ignorance.
  • macirish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Do no evil" is a pretty high standard for anyone.

    The evil of supporting state censorship for money, when you live in a country with a constitution that guarantees freedom of speech, should be obvious. Seems Google hadn't really thought through the implications of their famous policy.

    But maybe one man's evil is another man's freedom fighter.
  • rslc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I tried to post the CHINA version of YOUTUBE here in DIGG but the site was BANNED ?!?!???
    Anyone know why??? :)
  • randovaro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@buss: Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Secrecy is censorship. Any official suppression of information is censorship, not just ideas contrary to one's own. Indeed a censor can actually agree with the material but may still realise that its release is not in the "public interest". Doctors for example are censored from making your medical history public not just by the force of law, but also a self-regulated code of ethics & broader community expectations. Someone who is keeping a secret or keeping some details private is in effect self-censoring. The example of the doctor-patient relationship is easy. Everybody wants their doctor to censor their personal details from the public. But what form censorship should take in art & politics is much harder to define - especially across cultural divides and between generations.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1well thx for telling me. i had no idea adblock was so much different from adblock plus with its auto-blocker.
  • rupertmorris, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Get Firefox with the Adblock plus extension.
  • JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, Google was in no position to make demands. Sometimes you have to compromise even though it goes against your own gut. I still find it shocking that no one under 25 in China knows anything about the Tianamen Square massacre because that is omitted from all the textbooks, news, and yes...Google China. I saw that on a PBS program. ;)
  • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Respect > Money ???

    The only way respect is more important than money is when respect brings money.

    Sooner or later China will open up, and all Google will remember is that they made the right decision to make more money: ignore all morals.

  • person, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1no duh. Google didn't want to censor results in China, but figured it was better than not being in China at all. Gosh, that was announced like half a year ago. This is REALLY old "duh" news. I don't even know why it'd take an article to talk about it, especially NOW.
  • Servo888, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It's quite simple.

    You are an American company... You are in a free society; you became such a great company because of these freedoms. It is pure hypocrisy to allow yourself to support a country who does not give its citizens these freedoms! Yahoo and Google both did things that were very anti-democratic; Yahoo even landed a reporter in jail (denial of freedom of speech / press). I am a liberal; well mostly in the center - I take a strong stand against China though. As long as the PRC remains under Communist control, I see absolutely no reason to support China.
  • jcs_goog, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I happen to agree with Google's decision to censor. If China were to ban Google, that would be worse than Google's censoring.
  • Champzilla, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Whoopsy!
    Digg me over for messing up!
  • FixToTheMax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Really think that this should be seen by more people. First off, I think it was a bad move (obviously) on Google's part to have censored whatever content/searches occurred in China. However, I think it's a good move on their part that they're at least admitting to it and attempting to live up to it. I say 'attempting' because the way its phrased ("On a business level, that decision to censor... was a net negative.") seems to be they're concern was on the economic negatives, not the political or social negatives that came with it as well. Either way, good move for Google, keep it censor free.
  • V1be, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Two weeks ago, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Vodafone agreed to set principles regarding their censorship practices in China:
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/029956a0-a72a-11db-83e4-0000779e2340.html (Financial Times)

    I think what's interesting about this is how they have actually lost money from groups essentially "boycotting" them. When Google originally opened their search engine last year, I figured that while the outrage from bloggers and activist groups was pretty large, nobody was going to stop using their services. I'm wondering by what process they have found that it was this specific business decision that damaged them?
  • dengzhi, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4China owns!
  • compucomp2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Who the hell actually thinks that Google can actually influence China's policy? They're no Microsoft, and even M$ can't fully enforce their piracy doctrine in China, there are still pirated copies of Windows everywhere. WE ARE NOT AN AMERICAN SATELLITE STATE, AND WE DO NOT COW TO THE WISHES OF THE AMERICANS. WE ONLY DO WHAT IS GOOD FOR US. ***** DEAL WITH IT. AND NO, THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT BEING OVERTHROWN ANYTIME SOON, GET THAT SILLY THOUGHT OUT OF YOUR HEADS.

    What a bunch of hippie crackpot liberals. If you want to make money in our country, play by our rules. If not, get the hell out. We don't need you here, we are not beholden to any American in any way, especially not to some crackpot liberals who think censorship is a bad thing.
  • justaJ0e, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Google was attempting to follow the rules set up by the country in which it was wanting permission to do business in.
    I am impressed that so many people think Google is powerful enough to get the Chinese Government to change there rules when the United States government has been so completely powerless to do the same.

    What? Does Google have a secret stash of Nukes we haven't been told about?

    Gosh, if all it takes to get totalitarian governments to be open and honest - is for Google to come in and say "We are going to allow any freedoms we want to allow in your country."
    I'll bet the US could slash there military budget in half!
  • randovaro, on 10/12/2007, -16/+8Censorship, per se, isn't bad. To be honest we all believe in it and it is practised by everybody. Unless you think dangerous material should be available to children, your medical records made downloadable over the Internet or your Government's military secrets made accessible to other regimes, to list just three examples, then you agree that some types of information should be withheld from some people some of the time. Perhaps this is stating the bleeding obvious, but I groan inside every time I hear someone say that "they don't believe in censorship". Nonsense. In fact I put it to you that "freedom of speech", true unlimited freedom of speech, has never actually existed anywhere.

    I'm not defending China, or Google for that matter, in particular here, but I think we need a sensible debate on exactly what we mean by "censorship", its limits and limitations. For example, does censorship just mean restrictions on your freedom to criticise your own government, or something broader? Is this limited to slander/libel? At what age should a person be considered an "adult" for the purposes of access to information? Etcetera etcetera. And I'd really be interested to see if common agreement could be reached across cultures.
  • demonsofgoetia, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Currently 1,340,000 results for microsoft+china+censorship:
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=microsoft%2Bchina%2Bcensorship&btnG=Google+Search

    Examples:

    "Microsoft's chairman defends Google in China censorship row"
    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13132-2013195,00.html

    "Gates defends China's internet restrictions"
    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19149-2012784,00.html

    "Chinese Blogger Slams Microsoft"
    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67957,00.html

    "Microsoft censors Chinese blogs"
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4088702.stm

    "Microsoft blocking words on China's Web?"
    http://news.com.com/Microsoft+blocking+words+on+Chinas+Web/2100-1038_3-5744347.html

    "Microsoft censors Chinese blogger"
    http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044246,39302927,00.htm

    "China censorship impact on Internet freedom overstated - Microsoft executive "
    http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2006/04/23/afx2689692.html

    "Gates' Microsoft Denies Role In China Arrest"
    http://www.forbes.com/facesinthenews/2006/03/07/microsoft-china-yahoo-cx_po_0307autofacescan07.html

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.