Google Plans to Launch Censored Search Engine in China, Leaked Documents Reveal
theintercept.comAs a former Google employee myself, I have a really hard time connecting these actions with the company I used to be very proud of working for.
I understand that reaching the Chinese consumer is a huge opportunity, but drawing the line at refusing to assist in the censorship of 1.4 billion people seemed like an easy line to draw and stick to. If Google won't stand against this, won't the rest tumble? I fear a domino affect that won't be possible to undo.
For the first time in a long time, I am genuinely disappointing at Google and am questioning thoughts I've had in the past of going back to work for them again.
Google is already censoring content in the US and EU, not even the same results in all countries, and we asked for it, so what's so much different about following Chinese law?
The difference is about the same as purchasing a firearm for self-defense vs. purchasing a firearm as part of a plan to invade someone else's house.
A massive difference in the amount of censorship, for one.
Arguably (very arguably), US and EU censorship is somewhat justified by the attempt to protect individuals, but Chinese censorship is pretty blatantly about protecting existing power structures (in the name of "stability").
There seems to be a hypocrisy with people upset about censorship on behalf of China, but don’t seem all that upset about censorship on behalf of the EU (eg RTBF) or censorship when it supports their politics (eg hate speech)
I don’t support this theoretical move, but asserting Google should pull out/stay out of China and not obey/comply with local laws, and yet argue that the EU local laws should have global reach seems unjustified and unequal respect for sovereignty.
China is an authoritarian one-party state with a history of violating the human rights of its citizens. The EU, for all its bureaucratic flaws, is a democratic institution with a history of respect for rights and the rule of law.
So yes, absolutely, there are strong moral reasons to treat EU laws differently than Chinese laws.
The Right To Be Forgotten is to protect citizens while China's censorship exists to protect its government.
Placing China and the EU in the same category in regards to human rights, press freedom, and individual freedom is disqualifying yourself from any discussion about the topic.
Reality check: nobody use a mobile app for searching purpose. So either the whistleblower is misleaded, or it's a slightly different app than just search.
Pity so many corporations in our industry harvested good will of their users, expecting to never help their oppressors, and a decade later here we are :(
What a dumb idea. They have 0 chance of success in China and it will just create bad PR everywhere else.
We'll, that feels pretty wrong...
> We'll, that feels pretty wrong...
... to persons who value moral higher than shareholder value. Advertisers will mostly be happy to enter previously untapped markets.
It is cold, but why should Google care? The times when an publicity stunt like "dont't be evil" was required to establish a big user base are over.
If it would in any way raise the revenue of google, i assume google would instantly proclaim another "don't be a dick" COC.
I guess Google no longer cares about "Free speech on the web" eh?
I'll believe it when there's free torrent speech on google search results.
Did it ever?
What is wrong with this? It is as if Google spider bot sits within China.
What is the use of showing the result, if the users can't access the content? It makes sense to filter the result than showing an 'unauthorised' error on clicking the link.
First the military drones, now getting in bed with China, and the law straw was removing almost every mention of "Don't be evil" from its workers' code of conduct manual.
I think it's pretty clear at this point Google is willing to sell their own mothers (and your data) just to keep those profitable quarters up for many more years.
As more advertisers start preferring Facebook, I think Google will become even more desperate in regards to what it will be willing to do to increase revenue and profits quarter after quarter. Expect many big "evil" things to come from Google in the near future.
I guess it's what you get when you get judged by revenue growth, not just revenue, or even by people-employed-and-kept well-fed or some other more sensible metric.
Measuring companies “by people-employed-and-kept well-fed or some other more sensible metric” strikes me as a fantastic idea.
It's either that or pay dividends...
> Expect many big "evil" things to come from Google in the near future.
I worry a lot about the long term. What is going to be done with FB and Google's data once their founders are gone and Wall St has complete control? As far as I know, from their point of view there is no line that cannot be crossed for shareholder value. I believe in many cases the founders of these companies have actually been more morale than your generic fund manager. What's going to happen when the founders are gone?
Dont be evil was pretty much meaningless to begin with. Its not like there was a clear definition, and not being evil is a far cry from being actively a force for Good.
Sure it had meaning. It was protest against the old Microsoft.
Now that google is big enough to have the sort of financial incentives old Microsoft did, they’re making the same decisions. No it’s not identical, the EU is after them for their anticompetitive behavior, not the US.
"Don't be evil" was cute marketing, never a serious statement. It was removed precisely because people kept using it to argue against anything the company did.
Advertisers are also not leaving Google at all, and Facebook is not a replacement.
> keep those profitable quarters
Isn't it actually illegal for publicly traded companies to do otherwise?
Illegal? No. The principle is "best interests of shareholders" but that has never meant only profits, especially if the costs of those profits do material damage to the world those shareholders live in, in which case it's not in the best interests.
absolutely not, but the shareholders can stage a rebellion if the company keeps going in a direction they don't want it to. The standard examples here are companies that lose money or make minimal profits due to investing revenue into product development or growth. This is something shareholders are often okay with.
No this is actually a myth.
“More to the point, corporate directors are protected from most interference when it comes to running their business by a doctrine known as the business judgment rule. It says, in brief, that so long as a board of directors is not tainted by personal conflicts of interest and makes a reasonable effort to stay informed, courts will not second-guess the board’s decisions about what is best for the company — even when those decisions predictably reduce profits or share price.”
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
>First the military drones, now getting in bed with China, and the law straw was removing almost every mention of "Don't be evil" from its workers' code of conduct manual.
I'm sorry, but providing services to the US military (as an American company) does not qualify as 'evil'. I hear the same insane calls for not providing services to ICE, a federal, civilian agency enforcing American democratically-derived laws.
With respect to Google's dealings with China (and similarly Facebook's dealings with Russia), you can't expect technology companies to fight or even ignore major world military, economic and geopolitical powers.
It's not fair for Google to take the 'high-road' with China when nobody else does. I'm certain OP has no qualms in buying and using Chinese-made goods but still complains about Google being evil because they can't afford to ignore 1.4 billion people.
It is not fair for Facebook to fight Russian attempts at election engineering. It's not fair when the public demands that Facebook take all responsibility for being targeted by a major global power with unlimited resources to launch cyber attacks (looking at you Swisher).
Both cases are failures of US, and European governments. US and EU should exert diplomatic and economic pressure on China and Russia to liberalize their governments, and economies (the shit the China gets away with in the kinds of hoops it requires foreign companies to jump through is insane). In the case of Russia, it is the US and EU that should take every step necessary to force that government to stop targeting western technologies companies for purpose of manipulating the voting public.
This is particularly directed at the EU and Germany as they are very fond of publicly stating that with Trump being Trump that EU/Germany should take on a leadership position in world and they have the most to lose. Thus far, EU has done very little to curb Russian aggression (Germany particularly has been quiet) EVEN in light of the fact that Russia funded and took active role in the misinformation campaign that led to Brexit, and multitudes of EU and European nations have been either targeted with military force (Ukraine) or dirty money for corrupting politicians. Apparently none of this is enough for EU and Germany to pay more than lip service to Russian aggression.
Both being considered evil by a significant portion are a direct result of their own past actions. Saying "it is unfair to be judged morally for your actions while in power" is fundamentally about as much of an excuse as "I didn't shoot the guy I paid people to do it and they were just following orders so really nobody is at fault here!"
ICE's conduct isn't following the laws unless there were changes that called for putting tearing children away from families to place in steel cages in the custody of known child molesters and psychotropically drugging children without specialized medical licensing. Even if you accept their job the way they beyond the pale. They are literally acting in ways that would get a work critically panned as having such cartoonishly evil strawmen villains a few years ago. Don't fall for the hypernormalization efforts.
You are correct, but unfortunately people do not use rational thought when discussing emotional issues, especially in today's highly politicized and socially sensitive environment.
Spoken like a true boot licker.
It is absolutely the responsibility of every sovereign citizen and every company made up of those citizens to resist objectively evil behavior regardless of the larger apparatus at work.
Saying it “isn’t fair” for google to take the high road is the most asinine childish argument you could possibly put fourth.
It isn’t fair that people are having their human rights curtailed for profit. So that some people in some part of the world get amazing healthcare and amazing lunches, others have to suffer.
ICE was invented recently under Bush in 2003 preceding the Homeland security act. You are wrong to say we democratically voted in ICE. Even if we did vote it in, kidnapping children is evil fullstop and should be protested.
No American is free of using third world slave labor. This is unavoidable and all we can do is bring attention to it.
Your kowtowing to the powerful and buying into their propaganda is insanely stupid, evil and you should be ashamed of yourself.
>You are wrong to say we democratically voted in ICE.
Do you not understand how your own democratic system works? You don't democratically vote in any policy. You elect representatives charged with creating laws (Congress) and enforcing laws (Executive Branch). ICE is a federal agency created by Congress under the Homeland Security Act, with specific task of enforcing immigration laws and investigating immigration law breaches.
I think the original article deserves the URL spot. https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/google-china-search-engi...
There seems to be a hypocrisy with people upset about censorship on behalf of China, but don’t seem all that upset about censorship on behalf of the EU (eg RTBF) or censorship when it supports their politics (eg hate speech)
I don’t support this theoretical move, but asserting Google should pull out/stay out of China and not obey/comply with local laws, and yet argue that the EU local laws should have global reach seems unjustified and unequal respect for sovereignty.
Let’s face it, the core issue here isn’t free speech and censorship, it’s speech you like or censorship you like vs those you don’t.
> censorship when it supports their politics (eg hate speech)
It's not hypocrisy per se. We all agree that there are some limits to free speech (the classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" springs to mind but feel free to substitute your own impossible-to-disagree-with example).
Hypocrisy would imply there's an absolute principle at stake ("absolute free speech" vs "reasonable level of censorship") but nobody truly believes the former so we are all simply disagreeing about "reasonable" in the latter.
Yes, censoring hate speech and censoring any thought slightly critical of a repressive regime are exactly the same thing. /s
Free speech is only valuable if it protects speech you don’t like including the worst most vile forms of it.
In some societies, criticizing religion, parodying religious icons counts as bigotry and hate.
American liberals used to be pretty united and in agreement with Voltaire but it seems things have changed.