What is Digg?113 Comments
- Mitchum, on 10/12/2007, -21/+90I think you meant "immoral revenue is better than no revenue."
- babbling, on 10/12/2007, -5/+49Playing a part in the cover up of a government massacre of hundreds, possibly thousands, of people is evil no matter how you look at it.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+47"I frown upon their bending to the will of the government, but let's be fair: when in Rome, do as the Romans do."
So by this line of reasoning, in 1944 IBM had no other choice than to make millions selling their computers and consulting services to the Nazis. Otherwise someone else might have just done the same.
And those chemical weapons Rumsfeld sold to Iraq in the 1990s (that were later used on civilians in Fallujah), that was the right decision. Because it made money for our arms companies, and someone else just would have sold Hussein the weapons.
This betrayal of American values by an American company to make a quick buck isn't just a slippery slope... It's a slippery cliff. - felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33"Filtered information is better than no information."
That's the same kind of reasoning that lets people excuse all sorts of wrong behavior. You know, "it's gonna happen anyway, I might as well join in."
If Google took a principled stand, Chinese citizens would find a way to get to their site anyway. The real question is for their profits.
There's no grey area here. Google is wrong for bowing to censorship, and so is any other company that does the same thing just to make a profit in China. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -16/+44"immoral revenue is better than no revenue."
Because Chinese don't have many options as for legal uncensored services, it's really only more immoral than usual to western citizens, not them. And one could argue if it isn't how immoral it is in China that counts.
As I see it, the problem lies in their government, not Google. - lj535i, on 10/12/2007, -12/+29Translation: I'm jealous that practically everyone at Google is richer than me. Including the janitors.
- Ottergoose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17I highly recommend watching the Frontline special on "Tank Man." I was never really exposed to what happened in Tiananmen Square, and that show is pretty eye opening, and, mentions Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Cisco as companies that are helping China keep its public in the dark.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/ - lrm21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14The worst kind of evil is always perpetrated in secrecy. The Chines government is a master of it. The average person in 1939 had no idea Hitler was trying to exterminate jews, or that Stalin was killing millions. Just like the average person today has no idea what the Chinese Goverment is really up to, and thanks to Censorship we won't know for a long time.
- tzmguitarist, on 10/12/2007, -18/+31Has it occurred to anyone that China is the largest country by population in the WORLD? To effectively reach 1 Billon people, by any means, is a fantastic accomplishment. I frown upon their bending to the will of the government, but let's be fair: when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
- lrm21, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16I totally respect the answer. It's an honest answer, do you or don't you do business. Hey we are all guilty just flip anything over in your house "MADE IN CHINA"
Let's face facts we should not be doing business with China. All our free trade has done crap to help the Chinese people, but we have managed to flush the Communist Governemnt with Cash, weaken our dollar, and export manufacturing jobs out of country. I don't mind losing jobs if we lose em to a democracy but we are getting our ass kicked by China. Our cheap walmart life style has been built on the backs of cheap communist labor.
There are no easy answers and Brins was fair. Much better than the crap Terry Semel pulled, he said he would do business with Hitler. What an idiot. - escheppa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I am sorry but this quote "Google's China-approved web service omits politically sensitive information that might be retrieved during internet searches, such as details about the 1989 suppression of political unrest in Tiananmen Square." just wreaks of 1984.... so now according to google/china there was no political unrest in Tianamen Square.
- felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12So by your reasoning, the cigarette companies were right to suppress health warnings for all those years because it maximized profits for their shareholders?
Were auto companies right to resist seat belt laws for the same reason?
How about the meat industry at the beginning of the 20th century - letting dead rats and sewage get mixed in to the vats? After all, it sure was cheaper (read The Jungle if you're missing this reference).
And the union-busting tactics of the bosses at the same time - having goons beat strikers with clubs, and using murder and intimidation to keep people from unionizing, was that appropriate as well?
Hey, it's all in the name of profit! - stomicron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Chip away? How? By bending to the will of an oppressive government?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"As I see it, the problem lies in their government, not Google."
I'm sure this exact sentence was uttered in many boardrooms during the mid to late 1930s. - strangerzero, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12I give Brin credit for admitting it. We can learn through our mistakes and adjust your behavior accordingly.
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -27/+37Well, it was that or no Google for China, so I don't really think they had a choice. Filtered information is better than no information.
- heymark, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16You are, my friend, ridiculously correct.
- OperatorNo9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Many of you are taking the "some information is better than none" approach to Google entering the chinese market. It's not. People who have no information will start asking questions. A compromised Google will never raise an eyebrow in China. Not having Google certainly would.
Many of you also pointed out that the Chinese are the largest economy in the world and how can Google ignore such a market. Think about that from the Chinese government's perspective. They have a population of 1.3 billion that they have been treating like ***** for decades. And how many of that 1.3 billion is military. And of that percentage that is military, how many of them would shoot their own brother in the face? They absolutely have to control information in order to maintain control of the population.
Google had a responsibility to the Chinese people that it ignored for its own profit. There is no doubting that had they not entered the Chinese market, the stockholders would have thrown a hissy fit. But, what's right is almost never what's easy. - FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18Last I checked 6/6/06 isn't 666, and if you want to get even more specific yesterday was actually 6/06/2006!
- jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'm rather shocked by the stand that many are taking here. How quickly we can demand principle from supposed Bush administration practices but we're so willing to give Google a pass. If Google is going to continue to do business in China, then drop this stupid slogan and take your place in big business. Notice he didn't say they would stick to their principles, only that they recognise that as an option. In other words, "Yeah, we should go back now and stick to our principles, but damn we don't want to lose the business." Character takes effort and sacrifice. That's why so few people have it.
- vitalstatistix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8what Sergy implied in his "apology", or at least I think, was that a compromise was made by moving into the China market. By agreeing to censure some of its content google compromised its "don't be evil" anthem. In return, revenue increased. In hindsight Sergy thinks this compromise was evil.
- Jshwaz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9He never said that"we were evil". Very biased headline.
- vvaduva, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Oh heavens...and all the crap I got from implying the very same thing here:
http://digg.com/technology/Google_Agrees_to_Censor_Results_in_China - darkclarity, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Why do I keep seeing 6/6/06? Either drop the bloody zero as in 6/6/6 or zero-fill all the values like: 06/06/06. Even the bog standard 6/6/2006 would be more consistent... must calm down, it's only a date, only a date... :)
- jdavid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7If google isn't avalible in China, the Chinese government will have to explain why Google will not participate in thier economy. Silence can be a strong message when you step away from the pack. Google please leave China.
- EGOvoruhk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Damn, I thought I was finally in the clear of all this 6/6/06 nonsense
- brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Google had a choice. The correct choice was to tell the Chinese Government to go stick their censorship in their asses. When no one in the country can use Google, then what do you think the public will do? They will find a way to use Google. Thats what people do. Revolutions have been started with much less. The compromise simply perpetuates the governments power stranglehold.
- stomicron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@alexp2ad
The use of the word "evil" is in specific reference to Google's motto:
http://investor.google.com/conduct.html - pfunked, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Google has already proven that by not being evil they can make more profits long-term.
- stomicron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Political change doesn't and shouldn't come from Google. That should come from politicians."
I would argue that huge companies such as Google have much more influence in China than politicians. Look how far lobbying has got us in this matter.
Regardless, moves such as Google's just undermine the efforts of those whose job it "should" be. - yoyo42, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Well at least today the US is getting the month and day the right way round.
Month/Day/Year? What sort of order is that?
YY/MM/DD or DD/MM/YY are the only logical ways to do it... - neko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I can't say I agree with China's censorship policy, but I'm sure this was a difficult decision to make for Google. And he came clean, he's been having serious second thoughts about it. What's evil about that?
And I'm honestly getting a little tired of all the China bashing, when so many people blindly follow Fox News. - taylorhayward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Character takes effort and sacrifice. That's why so few people have it." So true. And it's worth every sacrifice.
- trogdor282, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@kremvax:
ibm did no such thing, when hollerith got nationalized by the nazis it ceased to be part of ibm.
and also GODWIN'S LAW YOU LOSE! hehehe :) - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@card2570
"Rumsfeld wasn't SecDef in the 1990'"
Ah, yes. My mistake, I was off by 6 years. Rumsfeld was brokering arms deals in Iraq during the 1980 to 1984, then working President Reagan's Envoy to Saddam Hussein. (From the National Security Archives:)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
THEN he went on as a private businessman to sell nuclear reactors and fissionable materials to North Korea during the 90s.
Thanks for the catch.
(If only the Legion of Doom kept biography pages on prominent supervillains, keeping the dates straight would be much easier.) - inturnaround, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Easy for him to condemn the Chinese government now that they shut Google out. I'm not sure what is more evil, Google's participation or their sudden disingenuous"conversion" to the light.
It's easy to support censorship when you're making money doing it, but criticizing the same thing you were a party the week you fall victim to it? Boo, GOOG, boo! - streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is an absolutely excellent documentary on this very construct called The Corporation ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225 ).
The film demonstrates the legal concept of a corporation as a citizen, and then, with the understanding that corporations are legally bound to attempt to make money for their shareholders, uses diagnostics from the DSM IV to prove that the modern corporation is built on the model of a sociopath.
It's quite an eye opener, for sure. - pornel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7So? Microsoft's janitors too, but MS at wasn't pretending not being evil.
- taylorhayward, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I would have tried every legal tactic to get around the access limitations China has set up and said, "Screw you China." I'm guessing there is not much China could say about Google hiring a platoon of hackers routing and rerouting traffic to their sites - all the while having emails sent to people who want to use the only uncensored service in the country.
Personally this has made me feel a little bad about Google. I like to think that they’re the last great hope for big software/web. Geniuses with conscience, a welcome combination. - pornel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7That's the problem. Google becomes "don't be evil to shareholders" type of company. Yes, they would probably lose chinese market, but that's the cost of having principles... which Google has lost.
- theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Google could still make a difference if they just pulled out of China today - it would be a massive demonstration seen by millions in China as they tried to get to Google and suddenly found they couldn't, essentially saying "look Google has been censored". Refusing to enter a country is no big deal - if no-one had your product before no-one is going to miss it, but pulling out once your in, that says allot and best yet its a highlight that cant be censored!
Should we be interfering with other countries like this? If they opened up to global trade then they opened up to this kind of thing (trade being used as a cultural bargaining chip) and for example in the Middle East they have been doing this with Danish goods essentially saying "if you don't abandon your idea of freedom of speech were going to abandon your products"
Its a dangerous road to go down, and while China certainly isn't making any demands about what we do, what if, for example, a country asked our governments to _impose_ censorship on us (i.e the reverse of what we're doing) or else they wouldn't sell us oil? This is essentially what Al'Qaeda would want to do if they could and what certain elements in certain countries are thinking about in the long run. - adammil2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The right way to fix this problem is for the US Legislative branch to pass laws to restrict US corporations' behavior overseas. Folks, don't forget that China has "Most Favored Nation" trade status with the US. The US government does not officially consider China to be a rogue state.
All you can expect is that corporations will obey the law and it is currently legal to do business with China. If you don't like what they are doing, it is best to change the laws.
My personal opinion is the best way to change China is to keep doing business with them. If our way of life in the US is truly better than theirs, then exposure to us will make it only a matter of time. Look at what happened to the Soviet Union. Sell them enough Levi's, Pepsi, and Rock and Roll, and they'll do their own regime change! :-) - sdawson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2By controlling everything people read and only allowing certain perspectives on every issue they are controlling the minds of their citizens, if google allows this they are allowing billions of people to be misled by their oppressive govt through their own service. That is evil, especially since the internet is supposed to be an environment of discovery. Would it happen anyway? Of course, but with companies like google supporting the censorship it only allows for the injustice to continue at a higher level (that is to say if every one just caves and meets their demand it makes it eaiser for others to do the same. If you have a motto to live by that says "don't be evil" if you allow yourself to be evil you have lied to every one, including you own ideals).
- fluffyturtle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Filtered information is better than no information."
Stop saying this. Other search engines are already providing filtered searches. So the "better than no information" is a lie because they already have the friggin information.
More filtered information is actually a bad thing. If everyone complies then there is no one left to stand up for their right to access the information.
Use your heads. - NiLeS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Google's free email service, Gmail, is among the internet's most popular."
What?? Even though most of us have an account, it's only at 5-6%. Who writes these? - Christophercles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Even coming down to a moral decision, without any money being involved at all, heres the situation for the Chinese people-
Choice 1- Get Google, with Censored information.
Choice 2- Get no Google.
Its not like Google have the ability to stick it out and change the Chinese governments mind about the issue, so I dont see how they did anything wrong. Sure they are making money, but if they could make any kind of a change to the policies of the government of the people of China, and they didn't, then they would be Evil, but they cant. - pijalu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Filtered information is better than no information."
By definition, filtering means modeling a reality... and information becomes propaganda...
In the china context, people will only get "Chinese Tibet is cool, they are really happy" and "In Taiwan, people eat children with barbecue sauce"... Since the people will only know this, they will mainly take it as the truth... and by extension, will be easily convince that invading Taiwan can only be a good thing.
On the other side, if people didn't receive info on the subject, they won't really care and will be harder to convince...
Filtering information is just a nice word for Marketing.... now if you take commercials for facts....
(for grammar/spelling Nazi: I am not a native speaker...) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Google's main competitor in China (Baidu.com) prefers the motto "BE EVIL"
Watch this crazy commercial: http://china-netinvestor.blogspot.com/ - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"As I see it, the problem lies in their government, not Google."
I'm sure this sentence was uttered in many boardrooms during the mid to late 1930s. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -16/+18Really Google had no choice, they have to obey the "laws" (however wierd they may seem to us) of a country they wish to operate within.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is