Somehow I think the Chinese people are better off with access to Google than without. It’s not like Google is actively developing next gen censorship and oppression technology by applying a url blacklist.
> Somehow I think the Chinese people are better off with access to Google than without.
I think the Chinese people are better off without the Chinese government having access to Google. Google is at it's core an advertising and surveillance company. Its true customers are not the users but the advertisers. Political advertising (AKA propaganda) would only get more powerful in China with Google as an outlet.
Possible. But it will also mean that Google probably does the same in other countries and you should not think you would be exempt from this.
It also does justify and support censorship Chinese people are subjected to. You can argue that is not up to Google to judge the chinese government and that might be correct. It still cooperates with the regime, so the accusation of supporting censorship is valid.
I guess Google would be better off building a technology that comprehensively defeats any attempts of censorship? That way Chinese users will also have google, but an unrestricted. Maybe by becoming openly hostile to China in the most direct sense, like recognizing Taiwan as the only China. Google has resources to do it.
How long until Google will (be forced to) feed back information about searches and visited websites* into China's social scoring/citizens score system and will thereby actively help the government in their effort to oppress any dissent?
"url blacklist" is a gross oversimplification of Dragonfly. If it was that simple Google would already be back in China. It would be naive to think that China isn't making sophisticated demands of Google and that they won't continue to make more now that Google has morally backtracked.
You're absolutely correct. The Party don't want us to access that tiny percentage of Google results that are political. Yet most in the west want us to have fuck-all. It's good intention. But the result is even worse.
Another question: if they do all this just to make the Chinese government happy (to earn more money), what is done to make the USA government happy (to earn more money)?
How should I trust that they won't "sell" my personal data to a government paying the most for that? How should I trust such an entity which makes the government happy, not the people? Are we really just the product sold to the people who have power?
It's hard to avoid Google totally as many of the emails I send are stored later on Google's servers, even if I don't send it from a Google account.
"Don't be evil" should rather be changed to "Don't be evil (whatever makes money is fine)".
At the same time China switched off the corruption AI, the rumor says that because it was too efficient in tracking the officials. If Google supports such a system, what would be next? Covering for selling children?
On the other hand, when Nazis were making the death camps, many companies happily provided lots of help, all for money. Seems like for too many stakeholders the money is the only thing that matters, not the people. Even if this is behind "don't be evil" faded unreadable flag.
I'm not living in the USA, should I assume that Google will work with my government to do evil against me?
Appreciate that you have more rights. Look at the Huawei saga where the CFO was able to sue for false imprisonment in Canada and compare it to those Canadians arrested/affected by Chinese government in retaliation for Canada arresting the Huawei CFO.
> The claim states that Meng's rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated. Meng, who remains under house arrest in Vancouver, suffered "mental distress, anxiety and loss of liberty", it says. The claim seeks declarations that her Charter rights were infringed, various damages and costs, all unspecified. [https://www.afr.com/news/politics/world/huawei-cfo-files-sui...]
They are for-profit organizations. They will make happy those who pay more. Simple rule of capitalism. Don't know why some are still wondering about this.
> On the other hand, when Nazis were making the death camps, many companies happily provided lots of help, all for money
Was it all because of money? Wouldn't they (the companies and their executives) have faced consequences if they turned down an "offer" by the Nazi government?
You're generally right but I don't think bringing Nazis into this discussion is a good idea.
I think we always approach news like this with the concept that it is, indeed, evil.
Especially when it concerns censorship, which us in the democratic world view as paramount to freedom.
I'm not convinced that China is outright evil. I think they're just taking a different approach. Speech can do good, and it can do very bad (as we've seen in the information age - people are increasingly prone to believing falsehoods).
While I don't agree with China's approach to speech, I can't say that they're straight out evil b/c of it.
For those that might reply, I do know that they've done terrible things - and you have to admit - our country has too.
If you ban Winnie the Pooh because you don't like a meme... I think it is pretty close their approach to speech is purely about self interest for those in power.
I can't understand why people believe that when Google compromise with the Chinese government on censorship things will become worse in the long run. As if it's okay to put Chinese in a position where only not-that-good search engines like bing are available - some people probably will consider that OK because they do not live in mainland China so they simply wouldn't have to care. To be fair, that's just hypocrisy.
As for the censorship bit - you guys really believe that when the US one day do the same thing as the current mainland government do Google will not compromise, aren't you?
Tbh their greatest product in my opinion was their marketing in hiding that fact for as long as they did. It’s so effective that even after all of this the vast majority of its users still view google favorably.
Can people stop sharing paywalled content that can easily be shared from literally any other source for free? If it's primary content then that's one thing, but generic news is not something that needs to be shared with a paywall link
[+] [-] raxxorrax|7 years ago|reply
Given the increasing orthodoxy of non-chinese search results, I think Google is developing in a wrong direction and that it needs more competition.
Funny, but Google has indeed turned its most important service to something that serves selected content.
In that case it should really be responsible for its content in my opinion.
[+] [-] neonate|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unicornmama|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlexandrB|7 years ago|reply
I think the Chinese people are better off without the Chinese government having access to Google. Google is at it's core an advertising and surveillance company. Its true customers are not the users but the advertisers. Political advertising (AKA propaganda) would only get more powerful in China with Google as an outlet.
[+] [-] raxxorrax|7 years ago|reply
It also does justify and support censorship Chinese people are subjected to. You can argue that is not up to Google to judge the chinese government and that might be correct. It still cooperates with the regime, so the accusation of supporting censorship is valid.
[+] [-] anovikov|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] romanovcode|7 years ago|reply
You're right, they are actively developing next-gen censorship and oppression technology with much more advanced and stealthy methods.
[+] [-] rndgermandude|7 years ago|reply
* AMP is still a thing, right
[+] [-] o10449366|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schuke|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OrgNet|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lohszvu|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wickedsmile|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] lostmsu|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pleasecalllater|7 years ago|reply
How should I trust that they won't "sell" my personal data to a government paying the most for that? How should I trust such an entity which makes the government happy, not the people? Are we really just the product sold to the people who have power?
It's hard to avoid Google totally as many of the emails I send are stored later on Google's servers, even if I don't send it from a Google account.
"Don't be evil" should rather be changed to "Don't be evil (whatever makes money is fine)".
At the same time China switched off the corruption AI, the rumor says that because it was too efficient in tracking the officials. If Google supports such a system, what would be next? Covering for selling children?
On the other hand, when Nazis were making the death camps, many companies happily provided lots of help, all for money. Seems like for too many stakeholders the money is the only thing that matters, not the people. Even if this is behind "don't be evil" faded unreadable flag.
I'm not living in the USA, should I assume that Google will work with my government to do evil against me?
[+] [-] Joakal|7 years ago|reply
> The claim states that Meng's rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated. Meng, who remains under house arrest in Vancouver, suffered "mental distress, anxiety and loss of liberty", it says. The claim seeks declarations that her Charter rights were infringed, various damages and costs, all unspecified. [https://www.afr.com/news/politics/world/huawei-cfo-files-sui...]
[+] [-] O_H_E|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] close04|7 years ago|reply
You shouldn't.
[+] [-] tzfld|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] t0astbread|7 years ago|reply
Was it all because of money? Wouldn't they (the companies and their executives) have faced consequences if they turned down an "offer" by the Nazi government?
You're generally right but I don't think bringing Nazis into this discussion is a good idea.
[+] [-] tiredyam|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Navarr|7 years ago|reply
I think we always approach news like this with the concept that it is, indeed, evil.
Especially when it concerns censorship, which us in the democratic world view as paramount to freedom.
I'm not convinced that China is outright evil. I think they're just taking a different approach. Speech can do good, and it can do very bad (as we've seen in the information age - people are increasingly prone to believing falsehoods).
While I don't agree with China's approach to speech, I can't say that they're straight out evil b/c of it.
For those that might reply, I do know that they've done terrible things - and you have to admit - our country has too.
[+] [-] newaccoutnas|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] byteofprash|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Proven|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] duxup|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bctnry|7 years ago|reply
As for the censorship bit - you guys really believe that when the US one day do the same thing as the current mainland government do Google will not compromise, aren't you?
[+] [-] marricks|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mlazos|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caprese|7 years ago|reply
what exactly is the cognitive dissonance here?
[+] [-] dayaz36|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3xblah|7 years ago|reply
Make sure you have javascript disabled or use "reader mode"
Or delete the AMP CSS in developer tools or use a browser that does not support CSS
[+] [-] b0bby_tabl3s|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] googlesux|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]