Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Google's self-censorship in China and Germany.

Page: (1)2

21:21 / 25.01.06

The launch of google.cn appears to support the censorship of information undertaken by the Chinese government, in that the company has agreed to block 'politically sensitive' sites. Prior to this agreement Google was subject to governmental blocks in China, but was not censoring itself.

Google's argument is that they are extending access to information amongst the Chinese people, and censored infomation is better than a complete lack of access. From the BBC report on the story: Google argues it would be more damaging to pull out of China altogether and says that in contrast to other search engines, it will inform users when access is restricted on certain search terms.

Interestingly, Google already censors itself elsewhere, in Germany pro-Nazi and Holocaust denial sites are not listed.

Since Google's motto is 'Don't be evil' (which arguably the Chinese government is) and given that the company is supposed to represent freedom to information for anyone, anywhere, is Google right to censor itself in any form?

Equally, is it more acceptable for a democratically elected government to ask Google to censor itself as in Germany's case, than it is for the undemocratic Chinese government to request the same thing?

21:30 / 25.01.06

From my understaning of the story Google will provide two services to China - a Google.com service in Chinese, which is slowed by China's firewall, and a faster self-censored site from within China. Which you could argue is either an ideal solution or a cynical fudge depending on how charitable you are feeling...

23:59 / 25.01.06

It's bad timing for Google, for certain. When you couple the launch of google.cn with the recent debate about Google being asked to give information on searches to the U.S. government, if they agree to the U.S government request (which to be fair doesn't seem likely at the moment) it does seem like the Google 'standard' may be in in danger of slipping somewhat.

13:34 / 26.01.06

my easy opinion is, well, it's their country, right? they can do what they want. google is a business that wants to operate, it's no different from any other business operating in other countries.

it might actually be a good thing in the long run. as the chinese get more used to the internet, they might be inevitably exposed, in little bits and pieces, to the things that they dont get to see. in one way, this brings the chinese people a step closer to the real world.

also, anything we can do, as freedom loving people, to encourage a nation of 12 gazillion people to spend more time on the internet and less time in boot camp and learning the quickest way over the bering strait, is a good thing. if the internet is the opiate of the masses, even a dull, restricted internet, may serve to numb them to their dear leaders' propaganda.

for some reason, google keeps coming up roses while yahoo keeps coming up stinkbugs. i dont see this as any different, and, in this case, i dont see, necessarily, that it should be any different. obviously it would be great if google was uncensored in china, but how is that possible?

All Acting Regiment

15:04 / 26.01.06

my easy opinion is, well, it's their country, right? they can do what they want.

But it's very much not what they want, it's what the government want.

it might actually be a good thing in the long run. as the chinese get more used to the internet, they might be inevitably exposed, in little bits and pieces, to the things that they dont get to see. in one way, this brings the chinese people a step closer to the real world.

And you're saying that the miniscule chance of a few bits of data potentially getting through the restrictions is better than letting them have the same acess that everyone else gets...because Chinese people can't handle the "real world"?

also, anything we can do, as freedom loving people, to encourage a nation of 12 gazillion people to spend more time on the internet and less time in boot camp and learning the quickest way over the bering strait, is a good thing. if the internet is the opiate of the masses, even a dull, restricted internet, may serve to numb them to their dear leaders' propaganda.

So, the "Dear leader" sanctioned version of google is better...because it'll make them more critical of the government? What?

You seem to be working on the assumption that this is the first time the chinese have had acess to any internet whatsoever. This is wrong. What's happening is a step back, not a step forward.

I think some reading around might be a good idea.

15:09 / 26.01.06

sorry, i thought the references to "gazillion" and "dear leader" etc would be taken as humorous. are you going to next tell me that there arent really 12 gazillion people in china?

by "their country," i meant the govt's country.

the option seems to be that google not appear in china at all. that doesnt seem a good option for google. i guess i would have to ask, how is this a step back? do the chinese now have unlimited internet access?

15:20 / 26.01.06

it would seem that we're quibbling over details, is it better for the chinese govt to censor google or for google to self censor. as far as is it right for google to do something, only google can interpret its own credo/motto/vision/whatever. is it "right" for ANY govt to restrict information? of course not. but not all govts are free. it should be of no surprise to anyone that china wants to limit access to information for its people.

google has plans beyond free information, just like any business. it has a right to pursue business interests as it sees fit. if one disagrees, one can stop using google as a search engine, as email, whatever. i dont think the argument over what is right and wrong is really worth much. of course it's wrong to censor information. but it's within google's right to do so because it's a business, not a govt, and it's within china's right to do so because they are the govt. same with germany. it doesnt make them good govts, it just makes them less free. obviously.

All Acting Regiment

16:47 / 26.01.06

sorry, i thought the references to "gazillion" and "dear leader" etc would be taken as humorous. are you going to next tell me that there arent really 12 gazillion people in china?

Haus may be able to word this better than I, but retroactively assigning "humorous" qualities to statements made in bad faith does not qualify them AFAIK. You say something here, it gets taken seriously, and to be honest your hilarious wit did have the whiff of authentic ignorance around it.

how is this a step back? do the chinese now have unlimited internet access?

It's a step back because Google previously stated that there would be no tradeoffs with the chinese government, and now there have been such. Simple as that.

it's wrong to censor information. but it's within google's right to do so because it's a business, not a govt, and it's within china's right to do so because they are the govt.

You're contradicting yourself.

i dont think the argument over what is right and wrong is really worth much.

Right. So you personally do not wish to debate the issue. Fine. Why are you here?

17:10 / 26.01.06

rex, please, listen:

lets start over, k?

here was the question:

"is it acceptable for any government to ask Google to censor itself, and should Google have done it?"

answer 1: two answers. first, acceptable on a human rights level? no. it's not. obviously. how could one disagree with that? but on the other hand, china as a govt can do whatever they want.

answer 2: "should" they have? thats up to them. it's a business decision. i think they were within their rights. you may not.

i'm certainly within my rights to offer my opinion. sorry you didnt get the joke before.

17:51 / 26.01.06

it's sort of a catch 22. if you're google, you're only in china if you're censored. but you want to be in. the positive aspect of it is that theyre in. this could be a hacker's dream, because i would imagine that it will be easier to get around google's censorship than the govt's censorship. another positive aspect is that google represents to the freedom-loving people of china that extry special freedom carrot that is out there but that they cant get all the way in their mouth. this may ignite imagination and desire to revolt with their thoughts and words and actions. getting some access is better than none at all.

it's a backwards step for google only in terms of how their policy is viewed. business-wise, it's no question a positive thing. but getting a foot in the door, as opposed to getting booted, at least allows google in, allows a western company in. as google develops and the internet develops, there will then be more pressure on the chinese govt to open its doors, perhaps. it's better than being shut out entirely.

19:20 / 26.01.06

I'm really wondering what this will do to Elgoog's market share. (In case you're not up on that.)

For the vast majority of Chinese, this really doesn't matter -- out in the western countryside, electricity is kind of a problem, much less computers, much less internet access. All in all, for the urbanized middle class (the computer-using class), I think a lot will depend on workarounds (like elgoog).

I read a lot of blogs out of China -- like this family one, and it's kind of funny. They can blog just fine, but they can't read comments. China (the gov't) blocks Blogger.com comments. If you want to tell the family something, you have to email them.

Given that kind of approach to the internet, I can't help but feel Google made the right decision -- better us do the limiting than them.

I also don't get one very important element of the decision: what exactly is the difference between Google.com and Google.cn? I mean, technically & legally. I know that Google.co.uk, for instance, behaves differently than Google.com, and I'd assumed that's just because it weights co.uk domains differently -- just a filter on ordinary Google, in other words. Are the different country services actually using different servers & databases? Why for?

19:31 / 26.01.06

I also think in contrast to other search engines, it will inform users when access is restricted on certain search terms is potentially explosive.

I mean, think about it -- you're an average Chinese guy, sitting at a computer and you enter a search term and instead of just getting a bland, featureless result like any other search (only more boring), you get a message saying, "Sorry, but your government isn't letting you read this." That's bound to have some kind of impact. I think it's likely that China's bureaucrats (like bureaucrats everywhere else) don't really understand yet how dramatic little bits of net design can be.

It's a deal with the devil, yeah. But still... tricksy.

02:58 / 27.01.06

Hell, no. and Hell, no.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:51 / 27.01.06

The obvious answer, of course, is that businesses with a listing on the NASDAQ are not entitled to do whatever they want in order to pursue their corporate objectives. For example, they are, at least theoretically, not allowed to sell weapons of biological terror, sell arms to nations in a state of war with the United States, that kind of thing. After Sarbanes-Oxley, to be a listed company requires certain standards of ethical compliance. So, the idea that it is Google's right as a business to do whatever they want to pursue their own corporate image is not only untrue but actively unamerican.

As it happens, this one is a bit more contentious than one might first think. According to Reuters:

Representatives from Google and other Internet companies have been called to a Congressional Human Rights Caucus hearing on Wednesday and to a February 16 session of the House of Representatives subcommittee on Global Human Rights.

So, you've got a couple of competing questions here - can Google do this on the grounds that it is compelled as a capitalist enterprise to do whatever it wants (no)? Should Google do this on the grounds that it is pursuing shareholder value in a permissible fashion (answer cloudy, try again later)? Is it wise for Google to be doing this when it depends far more on Western audiences to generate click revenue than the Far East (mmmaybe, but they'll probably be OK).

The number of people who boycott Google because of this will probably be pretty small. Google has the good fortune to offer a market-leading, best-in-class product which is basically free at the pump. I'd be more worried if I were a Google executive that some of the genuinely brilliant young technoheads will be turned towards another employer as a result of this sort of political compromise. The DoJ/NSA issue is, I think, more likely to be harmful.

11:57 / 27.01.06

gosh i hope nobody was saying that google can literally do whatever they want as a business. that would not be good.

good perspective and sources, haus. i hadnt realized google was being called up on this. in the end, i think it's the lesser of two evils to have google in there with a foot in the door. but i can see the other side of the argument. my only worry would be that whatever we've been doing with china hasnt yet worked much, they still have a terrible record in many areas. full-blown sanctions rarely work for anyone.

it will be interesting to see what happens next.

p.s. the chicks really dig it when you say "unamerican". keep that up.

ONLY NICE THINGS

12:40 / 27.01.06

Leaving aside sanctions, which nobody has so far mentioned, there seems to be a foundational belief here in a grand American business project to lead the simple people of China to democracy. However, the pursuit of business interests is actually inimical to this. Most famously, last year yahoo handed over data on a Chinese democracy activist which allowed Chinese authorities to imprison him. More recently, Microsoft has closed down a hosted pro-democracy blog, and does not allow search terms such as "human rights" in its Chinese service.

So, the tendency of business appears to be to collude in the suppression of the democracy movement. This may be a complex and brilliant double-bluff, of course.

12:46 / 27.01.06

more likely a double bluff that would fail until there is a western alliance willing to stand up to china, yeah. sigh.

13:17 / 27.01.06

more likely a double bluff that would fail until there is a western alliance willing to stand up to china, yeah. sigh.

Which won't happen in the immediate future. China's not like Iraq, military action wouldn't work. Economic sanctions are tough when the target is an up-and-coming powerhouse (powerHaus?) and supplies the world with cheaply produced goods. Both Europe and America are keeping friendly relations with China, and trying to soften them diplomatically.

(Apologies for the threadrot)

Professor Silly

17:50 / 27.01.06

I agree with ShadowSax--think of the internet (and the information it provides) as an informational drug. I've read that more people have high-speed access in China than here in America (granted, it's limited access, but access none-the-less). Even if the information is censored, the speed and conveinence will prove delicious to the Chinese. Now imagine their government trying to backpedal and take the internet away...
Methinks that would start a revolution.
So the Chinese Government have worked themselves into a corner: provide increasing access to world information or crumble in on itself--either way the result should be more freedom for their citizens.
...the first hit's free (snicker snicker snicker)!

18:15 / 27.01.06

If I were one of the Google people, I would tell the Chinese govt "yeah, we'll censor it", and then start sneaking in "revolutionary" info to people. Who knows, maybe start an underground subversive data trade (Fahreiheit 451 anyone?). Big business cannot impose democracy by itself, but it can be use as a mean for people who care to do so, if they are cunning enough.

But I doubt they'll have the guts...

All Acting Regiment

20:05 / 27.01.06

gosh i hope nobody was saying that google can literally do whatever they want as a business. that would not be good.

Yes, especially if they said it in a serious context, yet, when called up on it, decided it was "a joke", thus moving the fault from them to the interrogator (it wasn't a badly thought-out point at all, see- it's just that the person who challenged it didn't have a sense of humour). That would not be good.

Moving on, is the American administration in any position, in terms of powers and willingness to use them, to affect any change in this censorship? I can see that this might be read by the American right as dirty ol' big government pushing around the honest businessman, but on the other hand they could surely read Google's current deal with the Chinese government as a far more "unamerican" activity?

All Acting Regiment

20:16 / 27.01.06

Big business cannot impose democracy by itself, but it can be use as a mean for people who care to do so, if they are cunning enough.

Not only can it not impose democracy by itself, it is not in the interests of "big business" for democracy to exist at all, or at least not to the extent where that democracy can in any way alter the status quo (e.g. Bush's oil friends).

People can use big business to impose democracy if they are cunning enough? Well, I presume you have your own examples of this happening, but I would recommend that you think about the ratio of cunning subversive freedom lovers secretly pulling the strings of, I dunno, Walmart, to, say, the sort of people at Nestle who were "cunning enough" to sell unhygeinic baby-milk to starving Africans.

As has been said upthread, if we want to keep this discussion worthwhile we need to move away from the idea of the noble American corporations democratizing China, or anywhere else for that matter. The Chinese government is a disgrace but that by no means lets western corporations off the hook.

20:31 / 27.01.06

I said it can be used, I didn't say it would be easy, though. The point being it is so "big", it's possible to one subversive revolutionary to go unnoticed, at least for a while. I'll refrain from giving examples due to issues of, well, legal liability...

And I do believe that free and unlimited information distribution is the way to liberate all the peoples of the world. At least, in theory.

Infect the Planet with the Virus of Free Thinking!!!!!!

22:30 / 27.01.06

well, it's something that hitler would probably do, pursue wholly evil deeds for the sake of secrecy and taking over the world, also the antichrist. therefore, i am fully in support of all business with china.

quick dictionary link for anyone who wants literal translations of any of my words. just to be perfectly clear. dont. want. any. mistakes.

over and out.

23:27 / 27.01.06

Shadowsax seem to be making a hobby out of provoking Haus. Let's all assume we are all fucked up in a way or another. American capitalists, Chinese politicians, British brain scientists, men, women, rich, poor, cinicists, naive people, everyone, computer freaks, vegans, we're all going to hell and there's nothing to be done about it.

[memo to all: the smileys are there show this post is not to be taken seriously. Not too much, at least]

00:09 / 28.01.06

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:57 / 28.01.06

If it's not meant to be taken seriously, Dead Megatron, why post it in a serious forum? Shadowsax can be a sulky teenager without your help, I'm sure.

Everyone back on topic now, please.

ONLY NICE THINGS

22:59 / 28.01.06

For example, DM, you say:

If I were one of the Google people, I would tell the Chinese govt "yeah, we'll censor it", and then start sneaking in "revolutionary" info to people.

Why. Why would you do that, if you were "one of the Google people"? What would be your objective? To your shareholders? To the people of China? To the government of China? What would you seek to do?

Professor Silly: I don't think China has any plans to "ban the Internet" - increasing technical ability and communication technology is a pretty key element for its development. However, there are already considerable technological fixes for access to specific information. This is quite an interesting read on this.

01:01 / 29.01.06

Thanks for the link to the opennetinitiative study Haus.

With regard to Google's disclaimer, (your government does not want you to see this) according to Radio 4's Chinese correspondent the declaration is very small and unobtrusive; in other words easily missable.

I'm not sure that the fact that they are declaring that content has been removed eradicates their undeniable corporate intention of making as much money as humanly possible. It's fairly certain that Google are in China because China can make them money and really the disclaimer is only relevant in that they can use it and point to it as an example of their desire for freedom of information, thereby appearing to be a 'caring' company unlike the 'uncaring' corporate giants that are Yahoo and Microsoft.

The disclaimer means that Google is trying to assure that those amongst us who have issues about such things continue to feel OK about ourselves as we use Google.

That's pretty much all it means.

I'm glad there is such strong opinion here on the subject of Google's self-censorship within China but I wonder why no-one seems to question Google's self-censorship within Germany?

I have to admit that I am less interested in Google's willingness to self-censor in a 'developing' country which has the potential to provide it with millions of dollars in revenue (since it is in the end just a Corporation, however vaunted it's values) than I am in it's choice to self-censor in a democratic country where the company's revenue stream is already fairly steady.

With reference to what google is censoring in Germany, I can see why the German government might want that, but that's not the issue. The issue is that Google is allegedly supposed to stand for freedom to information, but by self-censoring it is in effect deciding what information is acceptable and who should have access to it.

That doesn't equate, at least in my head, to freedom of information.

ONLY NICE THINGS

01:18 / 29.01.06

I think probably quite a big difference is that the limits on information accessible in France and Germany are according to laws set up by democratic rather than totalitarian states...

01:48 / 29.01.06

be bop - yeah, i agree. i'm more disturbed by the censoring in germany. it might be a stretch to say that it's better/less bad (not sure if that was the point of haus's comment) because germany is democratic; democratic states can obviously violate their own laws or standards. so it's not enough to say that because they are democratic, their govt has more liberty to do such things.

in a so-called free society, i expect to be able to get information or at the very least be able to discover its existence. that google censors some material in germany is very disturbing, also because it opens up the possibility that it's doing similar things in other so-called free states.

it's scary because it's rare to hear stories like the one where the librarian made the FBI wait for a warrant before turning over documents, whereas it's becoming increasingly common to hear of suspect actions that have been going on without much news. the confidence in free societies is losing its balance, which is in many ways just as or more dangerous than any actual govt wrongdoings.

01:56 / 29.01.06

Haus, yes sorry, I thought I pointed that out in my first post. I agree it's relevant that Germany's government is asking Google to censor itself on the basis of (one presumes) what the German voting public wants, whereas China clearly isn't, but I still don't really understand why any self-censorship is acceptable in a company based in an extremely outspoken and self-proclaimingly 'democratic society'.

All Acting Regiment

03:41 / 29.01.06

And I do believe that free and unlimited information distribution is the way to liberate all the peoples of the world. At least, in theory.

Again, this is not something that big business wants. Corporation X does not want possible consumers to acess information about their substandard materials, and certainly not their use of child labourers.

Back on topic, doesn't Google Germany block the websites of actual Neo Nazi groups, which link strongly back to the Nazi "entity" of the 1940s to the point of being it's manifestation today? Doesn't this mean that by blocking these groups, the search engine is somehow sacrificing a little freedom of information to thwart the major loss that would come with these group's rise to prominence? I don't know if that's a workable reading, but it could be.

ONLY NICE THINGS

10:28 / 29.01.06

in a so-called free society, i expect to be able to get information or at the very least be able to discover its existence. that google censors some material in germany is very disturbing, also because it opens up the possibility that it's doing similar things in other so-called free states.

Google does something similar in America. If you use Google to try to find child pornography in the US, you will not get all the child pornography links that Google could provide. You can get that information, of course, but it involves using a search engine other than Google, or joining a club or something. One difference, then, is that you can get that information elsewhere - have a read of that document I linked to above on Chinese data restrictions to see if you can work out some differences there.

So, are you pro or anti Google not returning search results for child pornography? Only, at the top of this thread you said of Google, and I quote:

it has a right to pursue business interests as it sees fit.

I think a lot comes down to what one means by a free society, and also what one means by freedom of information. Google China is operating in an environment where data is tightly controlled. Google Germany is not, to anything liek the same extent. So, Google Germany not providing links to neo-Nazi sites seems more to me - to extend our capitalist metaphor - like Ben and Jerry's not offering bloody stool flavoured ice cream...

11:04 / 29.01.06

there is a big difference between child porn and nazi-related sites. child porn is illegal. the exchange and possession of child porn is illegal, regardless of the method of exchange and possession. for google or any corporation to participate in those activities would be illegal. being a nazi, at least in america, isnt illegal. nor is believing that the holocaust didnt happen.

as far as i know, google returns searches for unicorns and astrology, both found by many people who believe firmly in things that simply arent true.

Page: (1)2