...

View Full Version : Google stops censoring China



drhowarddrfine
03-22-2010, 08:33 PM
Google Inc. on Monday began re-directing Internet traffic away from its Chinese-language site at google.cn to Hong Kong-based google.com.hk
Link (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/google-re-directs-traffic-away-from-china-site-2010-03-22)

tomws
03-22-2010, 09:45 PM
I disagree with much of Google's social/political leanings, but I admire a company that's willing to stand on its principles even in the face of potential revenue loss.

MattF
03-23-2010, 12:52 AM
I disagree with much of Google's social/political leanings, but I admire a company that's willing to stand on its principles even in the face of potential revenue loss.

The way I interpreted that page was more that it was a way to protect themselves, or was the attack mentioned not related to something intrinsic to their filtering system?



Google announced in January that it had traced a sophisticated cyber-attack to China, and as a result would no longer filter results in its Chinese search service.

drhowarddrfine
03-23-2010, 04:35 AM
Google was not the only company attacked. The attacks were partly to obtain information about Chinese dissidents which Google defiantly protects. Microsoft, one of the attacked companies too, apparently has no problem with that and chooses to remain.

brad211987
03-23-2010, 01:21 PM
Google was not the only company attacked. The attacks were partly to obtain information about Chinese dissidents which Google defiantly protects. Microsoft, one of the attacked companies too, apparently has no problem with that and chooses to remain.

Never one to resist a Microsoft jab! But why no jab at the list of other companies?

While I agree, its still a difficult decision to cut out 50% of the worlds population. And to be honest, Google didn't pull out of China strictly on principal, if that were the case, they wouldn't have had a search engine that filtered its results to begin with. Thats just publicity, and good publicity at that. Glad they pulled out of China like they said they would anyway, as China needs to loosen its grip.

drhowarddrfine
03-23-2010, 02:59 PM
Never one to resist a Microsoft jab! But why no jab at the list of other companies?Cause I don't recall who the others were. I think Yahoo might have been one but Yahoo has not made any comment yet. Microsoft, however, is the only company that puts out PR of their support for China's filtering, afaik.


While I agree, its still a difficult decision to cut out 50% of the worlds population.Actually, only a small percentage of them have access to computers or the internet.
And to be honest, Google didn't pull out of China strictly on principal, if that were the case, they wouldn't have had a search engine that filtered its results to begin with.
First was the search engine. Filtering came later and with reluctance. Google was the last major search engine to put filtering in place and they stated from the beginning they were not happy about it but were required to by law. They were hoping free speech would win out eventually.

Apostropartheid
03-23-2010, 05:56 PM
It's still a large market. And it's still money.

I think the free speech thing is just a positive spin on their retreat from the market. It's obviously not the reason they're pulling out. D'you think they still run AdSense? It probably loses a lot of its value without the search engine backing it.

brad211987
03-23-2010, 06:17 PM
Actually, only a small percentage of them have access to computers or the internet.

No doubt, but this also accounts for the largest upside potential customer base in the world.


First was the search engine. Filtering came later and with reluctance. Google was the last major search engine to put filtering in place and they stated from the beginning they were not happy about it but were required to by law. They were hoping free speech would win out eventually.

As long as they weren't happy about violating their principals I guess it's OK. In any event, its a shame China didn't come around but even Google knew that was a slim to none chance.

My guess would be that adsense will be pulled as well, but I've not seen anything referencing that.

drhowarddrfine
03-23-2010, 07:07 PM
I think the free speech thing is just a positive spin on their retreat from the market. It's obviously not the reason they're pulling out.

You don't think the attempts to get into their email system was part of it?

If you read the book "Googled" or somesuch, you'll find Google is not a company that lets profits drive their philosophy and the author was on David Rose a while back where he mentioned he wouldn't be surprised to see Google pull out for philosophical reasons and money would not hold them back.

brad211987
03-23-2010, 07:13 PM
You don't think the attempts to get into their email system was part of it?

If you read the book "Googled" or somesuch, you'll find Google is not a company that lets profits drive their philosophy and the author was on David Rose a while back where he mentioned he wouldn't be surprised to see Google pull out for philosophical reasons and money would not hold them back.

It's not a coincidence that they happen to decide to stand on their principals immediately following the attack. Google is a company very much like any other, they are most certainly driven by revenue and profit. It's profit that allows them to continue changing the world as they do, and that is not a bad thing. I've worked closely with their Google Apps team on many occasions, like any other part of their company, they are quite talented, but they are absolutely out to make money in the long run. As well they should be.

As for China, Google is sugar coating the pull out with talks of principals, and doing it quite well. If they had decided to pull out of China with no inciting event to speak of, then I'd be OK with their reason, but thats just simply not how it happened.

drhowarddrfine
03-23-2010, 08:03 PM
It's not a coincidence that they happen to decide to stand on their principals immediately following the attack.The straw that broke the camel's back?
Google is a company very much like any other, they are most certainly driven by revenue and profit.If you read the book I mentioned, or watched any of the author interviews, you'll find it's quite different how Sergey, Brin and Schmidt view such things.


As for China, Google is sugar coating the pull out with talks of principalsWhy do you say Google needs to sugar coat it? I don't understand that at all.

Apostropartheid
03-23-2010, 08:54 PM
Because Google can't actually prove that China acted against them/pointing it out would hurt relations. They needed another reason.

MattF
03-23-2010, 09:25 PM
you'll find Google is not a company that lets profits drive their philosophy

Totally believeable. They have shareholders, hence they're profit driven. Google are no different to any other large corporation. If there's no fiscal value in it for them, they won't do it. Even the stuff which appears to have no value always has some form of value, whether it be just good publicity or otherwise.

To put it in terms you'll appreciate, they're like M$ but less crap at everything they do.

drhowarddrfine
03-23-2010, 10:18 PM
Because Google can't actually prove that China acted against them/pointing it out would hurt relations. They needed another reason.

Why do they need a reason? Why would they want to leave and need to make this up? That doesn't make any sense. Under what pretense are you saying Google is acting and what is the reason behind it?

drhowarddrfine
03-23-2010, 10:21 PM
Google are no different to any other large corporation.
I repeat. If you read the book and see the Charlie Rose interviews, you'll see they are not the same.

btw, the book is fact filled but plodding and boring. No adventure story there. I could not finish it for those reasons.

Apostropartheid
03-23-2010, 10:53 PM
Why do they need a reason? Why would they want to leave and need to make this up? That doesn't make any sense. Under what pretense are you saying Google is acting and what is the reason behind it?

I'm saying that Google are leaving because of the Chinese attacks. They're putting the freedom of speech spin on it because it gives them a way to leave with good public press. Although this may have had some role in their decision, I highly doubt it was high on the list.

MattF
03-23-2010, 11:26 PM
I repeat. If you read the book and see the Charlie Rose interviews, you'll see they are not the same.

Mate, my parents used to tell me S.C existed, but even though I completely trust them, I still know that's a complete crock. Why the hell would I think something is true just because someone else says so, whether it be in printed form or verbal? You believe what you wish and I'll live in the real world thankyou.

drhowarddrfine
03-24-2010, 04:09 AM
Why the hell would I think something is true just because someone else says so, whether it be in printed form or verbal?
Because when you have no way of getting the information yourself, you must rely on others. Some you learn to trust. Some you question. And sometimes you learn by collecting from a variety of sources.

Or you can remain totally in the dark and just watch the shadows on the wall and determine the relevance from that.

In this case, the author spent two years inside the company and is a reporter for the NY Times and has written books about and reported on Microsoft and Apple. He knows far more than you will glean by your guessing and assumptions.

MattF
03-24-2010, 10:12 AM
Still bunkum. Human nature is human nature, regardless what any reporter, (and we all know how their recounts are completely factual, without bias and backed by extremely high principles), says. Google still ain't on my list of companies with exemplary morals. I wouldn't believe some numpty reporter who was trying to make some money from a book as a source of reliable and factual information. Like he has no ulterior motive for writing pretty much any old tat as long as it will fill a volume from cover to cover.

Btw, it's not that some of us prefer to live in the dark or suchlike. It's merely the fact that some of us are not mindless zealots. :)

drhowarddrfine
03-24-2010, 12:00 PM
If you do not believe people who's job it is to report on such things and spend years of their lives doing so, who do you believe? Who do you get your information from? What is your source for refuting this?

MattF
03-24-2010, 12:16 PM
If you do not believe people who's job it is to report on such things and spend years of their lives doing so, who do you believe? Who do you get your information from? What is your source for refuting this?

I believe nothing more than simple, proven fact. One persons opinion or observations are not fact. Several independant opinions which reach the same conclusion could be classed as believable, provided there is no bias or personal interpretation of the facts involved. It all boils down to solid, provable facts. Someone who has written a book on the subject automatically excludes themselves from that, to a degree. They will garnish things to make the book more 'desirable' to prospective purchasers. That's a simple fact. Plus, one single persons opinion is always subjected to their own personal intepretation of something. Take these forums. If I posted, for example, a sarcastic comment around now, that comments meaning would be interpreted in a multitude of different ways by different members, i.e: personal interpretation, yet the comment would be exactly the same, regardless of who read it.

As I say, Google has shareholders. The moment that happened, morals take a backseat to profit. That's not an opinion, it's a simple fact. You think most shareholders give a toss whether something is right or wrong? They're looking at their bank balances and nothing more.

drhowarddrfine
03-24-2010, 12:41 PM
I believe nothing more than simple, proven fact. One persons opinion or observations are not fact.An observation is fact unless, of course, they're lying. A reporter's job, especially in books of that sort, is not to make things up but to report facts and, as I said above, the book is so overloaded with facts that it makes it boring to read. Stating "so and so met with so and so on April 25th and stated they would do this" is not opinion.


Someone who has written a book on the subject automatically excludes themselves from that, to a degree. They will garnish things to make the book more 'desirable' to prospective purchasers. That's a simple fact.That is opinion and assumption on your part and not always true. You are basing your opinion on opinions of others and hearsay or the occasional story where this was true ignoring that most books of this type are NOT embellished.

Plus, one single persons opinion is always subjected to their own personal intepretation of something.This is true, and will always be a problem that can't be helped, but people are trained in these activities just as doctors are trained to analyze your body and give their "opinions" based on information given to them. The source must be considered.


As I say, Google has shareholders. The moment that happened, morals take a backseat to profit. That's not an opinion, it's a simple fact.No, that's opinion. What is your fact showing it's true? Are you basing your opinion on what you see on TV or read in the news about a handful of companies that were caught or are you basing it on personal observations of the inner workings and dealings of most corporations of this type?

Here's an example of fact vs opinion though I can't remember the exact details. The reporter was sitting in on a meeting with Brin and Page where a financial person was trying to tell them they should partner with another company on something and it would bring in more opportunities. He quoted Brin and Page saying they didn't understand what the guy was asking them to do because this company did things that harmed the ecology and the deal was dropped at the cost of millions to Google. This was one of a few examples given as proof that Google does not act like most other companies. You could say the resulting statement is opinion but isn't it opinion based on observed fact?

MattF
03-24-2010, 01:31 PM
No, that's opinion. What is your fact showing it's true? Are you basing your opinion on what you see on TV or read in the news about a handful of companies that were caught or are you basing it on personal observations of the inner workings and dealings of most corporations of this type?


It's based on personal observation of people, period. One thing defines most people. As the saying goes: 'The love of money is the root of all evil'. I'd say most rather than all, but you get the point. Especially these days, and especially in the so-called civilised countries, people are far more self-serving and self-obsessed now than ever before. You think the majority buy shares in a company for the warm glow they'll receive from knowing they have part in that companies ethics?



He quoted Brin and Page saying they didn't understand what the guy was asking them to do because this company did things that harmed the ecology and the deal was dropped at the cost of millions to Google. This was one of a few examples given as proof that Google does not act like most other companies. You could say the resulting statement is opinion but isn't it opinion based on observed fact?

Nope. For them to merge would have been a form of business suicide. (They'd have survived it, but it would have dented their credibility and worth far more than what they lost from pulling out of the deal). When a company tries to put themselves on the pedestal, they have no choice but to make sure some bugger doesn't kick the pedestal. Self inflicted own goal there and nothing more.


Btw, we could run this discussion for ever and a day. I'm just as pigheaded and stubborn, you know. :D

drhowarddrfine
03-24-2010, 01:52 PM
At least you're not criminally insane like....you know....

drhowarddrfine
03-25-2010, 03:33 PM
GoDaddy pulls out of China. (http://sify.com/finance/us-web-registrar-godaddy-com-to-pull-out-of-china-news-international-kdzhadbajeg.html)

MattF
03-25-2010, 03:39 PM
At least you're not criminally insane like....you know....

I bally well hope I'm not. :D

austinaddy
03-26-2010, 08:02 AM
google has chosen not to participate in chinese govt using the internet to spy on their own people and violate their civil rights.
it really makes me wonder about all the others who say 'yes' to this sort of obvious violation of rights and privacy and makes me wonder about our own privacy when we use those other search engines.

tdave
04-08-2010, 09:18 PM
I believe nothing more than simple, proven fact. One persons opinion or observations are not fact. Several independant opinions which reach the same conclusion could be classed as believable, provided there is no bias or personal interpretation of the facts involved. It all boils down to solid, provable facts. Someone who has written a book on the subject automatically excludes themselves from that, to a degree. They will garnish things to make the book more 'desirable' to prospective purchasers. That's a simple fact. Plus, one single persons opinion is always subjected to their own personal intepretation of something. Take these forums. If I posted, for example, a sarcastic comment around now, that comments meaning would be interpreted in a multitude of different ways by different members, i.e: personal interpretation, yet the comment would be exactly the same, regardless of who read it.

As I say, Google has shareholders. The moment that happened, morals take a backseat to profit. That's not an opinion, it's a simple fact. You think most shareholders give a toss whether something is right or wrong? They're looking at their bank balances and nothing more.

This is the greatest reply ,and yes If we do believe people just because of his job is to report on such things and spend years of their lives doing so,that seem like a child.Use our judgment and compare to difference sources.

I think Money factor is one of the reason why Google out .I talk about the freedom to making money.If there are so many rules to follow,it certainly will limits your earning power..



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum