Google Hypocrites?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Com..._28_06_DS.html

January 28, 2006

Don't Be Google
By Debra Saunders

Google gives life to the Eric Hoffer observation, "People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them."
Google painted itself as heroic in refusing to help the U.S. Department of Justice's efforts to reinstate a 1998 federal Child Online Protection Act, then revealed that it was going to help the Chinese government suppress free speech. That sort of goes against the company's informal corporate motto, "Don't be evil."

I realize how eager those in the Bay Area are to believe that the evil Bush administration wants to double as Big Brother and eavesdrop on well-meaning peaceniks. So it doesn't matter that the DOJ isn't looking for information on individual accounts -- but instead wanted data on how the Internet is used during a given week to see how users access porn.

Personally, I'd be more supportive of the Department of Justice's subpoena if the feds were trying to locate specific individuals -- child-porn-aholics, for instance -- just as I would support a government subpoena for bank accounts used to launder mob money. My issue with the subpoena -- and I agree with Google on this -- is that it asks for a huge chunk of information to support the government in a civil suit. It's a fishing expedition, in which corporate America provides free research. Yahoo and Microsoft, however, were able to comply. A Yahoo spokesperson said the company did not release personally identifiable information.

Care about rights? Be it noted that exposing children to porn on the Internet violates their parents' rights. Still, Google emerged from the controversy as a defender of privacy. Columnist Robert Scheer in Wednesday's San Francisco Chronicle duly lauded Google's refusal to comply with the Justice Department's request, as he wrote that the "latest high-tech upstart giant dared to challenge the government's claim of an unbridled right to break into our information-age virtual homes." The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson described the subpoena as "more of an Orwellian threat than the National Security Agency's snooping on phone calls and e-mails."

You have to marvel at Google's great marketing ploy. The company amasses founts of information on users of its service. Yet, by riding on the coattails of anti-Bush sentiment, Google claims the mantle of champion of privacy rights. "We intend to resist (the government's) motion vigorously," said a Google lawyer in a statement.

All hail Google. The Google-philes fawn as if bashing the Bushies in the Bay Area is an act of courage, when it's the most popular -- and probably profitable -- thing a company can do.

Meanwhile, back in Beijing, Google has agreed to filter out sites that the Chinese government doesn't like. The Chinese government won't have to rely on its fleet of monitoring devices that block out "subversive" content from the West, such as information on the Tiananmen Square protest, Tibet and Taiwan. Google will do the dirty work.

The Mountain View, Calif., company will withhold e-mail and blogging services, it says, to protest the Chinese filtering. A Google statement explained that "while removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information" is "more inconsistent."

It may be only a matter of time before Google starts acting like other Internet providers that also censor for China. Last year, Yahoo helped the Chinese government prosecute a dissident reporter. This month, Microsoft shut down a pesky blog. As The Associated Press reported, Microsoft's service in China bars such terms as "democracy" and "human rights."

Here's a thought: Google could ban the phrase, "Don't be evil." I understand that Google wants to make a profit. I just don't know how company execs garner the image of little guys standing up to big, bad government.

Google can say no to the Bushies and know that it won't lose any business, its executives won't go to jail and their children will not get run over by tanks. In the country where those things could happen, Google is a collaborator.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate

[Archduke Tips]

Google is a well run business.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Thanks, I'm gonna lock the thread now.

[Archduke Tips]

Not before you HAIL TO OUR GOOGLE OVERLORDS.

[Kulturkampf]

This is what I wrote on it. The version with links can be found in here:

Recently, Yahoo and Google have been asked to appear before Congress to answer questions concerning free speech and the internet in China, as both of these companies have made efforts to develop government friendly search engines in China, which specifically censor events like Tiananmen square and the Dalai Lama.

Google has made attempts towards the American public to always be honest. When typing in a phrase like 'failure' used to produce a biography of President George W. Bush through the technique of 'Googlebombing', Google posted the following statement:

"Pranks like this may be distracting to some, but they don't affect the overall quality of our search service, whose objectivity, as always, remains the core of our mission."

Apparently, Google's "objectivity" only is applicable when searching in the United States. Google would be more comfortable alterting the results one gets when searching for controversial issues to China, helping prop up the policies of a government that has countless human rights abuses under its' belt, but they would be unwilling to halt an internet prank defrauding the integrity of their search engine.

Way to go, Google. Objectivity, as always, remains the core of your mission in distorting search engine results for Communists. Objectivity is only achieved when the worker's revolution is actualized through the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Ugh, I guess, I'm going to basically agree with you.

Let's not forget Gmail. Sacrifice a little freedom for good service, but that is a pretty Orwellian service in its own right. I love being inundated with advertisements for ski trips if i type the word "snow" in an e-mail. :/

I kind of see Google's point about some info access being better than none, and when it comes down to it, they have every right o run their business the way they like. They aren't a public trust, they owe nothing to any of us.

But as the article says, please, drop the David act.

[AChimp]

You obviously don't have the faintest idea of how Google-bombing works, do you?

In developing search engines for China, Google and Yahoo are working for the Chinese government, which runs the Internet over there. The client always gets what they want in software development, so if they say we don't want certain things in it, then that's what they get or Google doesn't get any money for the service that they provide. It's capitalism at its finest.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by AChimp

so if they say we don't want certain things in it, then that's what they get or Google doesn't get any money for the service that they provide. It's capitalism at its finest.

Yeah, thanks, nobody has disputed that.

There are a couple of issues here though, one being minor, the other more significant. The former is Google's self-righteous attitude over this DOJ inquiry (which Yahoo and Microsoft had no trouble complying with), the latter being the fact that they present themselves in this fashion here while assisting the shitty Chinese government in making a buck.

I guess a little bit more consistency from the "don't be evil" company would be nice. Capitalism is evil, deal with it.

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by AChimp

You obviously don't have the faintest idea of how Google-bombing works, do you?

In developing search engines for China, Google and Yahoo are working for the Chinese government, which runs the Internet over there. The client always gets what they want in software development, so if they say we don't want certain things in it, then that's what they get or Google doesn't get any money for the service that they provide. It's capitalism at its finest.

What are yout alking about?

Google refused to alter the results after the googlebombing because they wanted to be objective, even though it was more of an act of vandalism that in no way enhances a search engine.

Howeve,r they will alter search results for words like 'tiananmen square' and 'dalai lama,' for China.

Don't be absurd.

[Chojin]

They don't dick with googlebombs because it would ruin the entire algorithm by which Google can search for other items.

Omitting results entirely happens at a different stage of the software - after the search algorithm. Google already does this for plenty of sites in the US, too, especially in their image search.

To put it in terms that morons can understand, in order to prevent 'failure' returning George Bush's site, they would have to prevent Bush's page from appearing under ANY search. This is what they're doing to specific sites as required by the Chinese government. This was obviously not an acceptable solution to the former case because some people might actually want to get to Georgie's site.

If Chinese people are to use Google at all, they have to comply with Chinese government regulations regarding the internet. Given the option of no Google or limited Google, they chose limited. I don't understand why that is inconsistent with their mantra. Would the less evil option have been to not let Chinese people use Google at all?

It's a moot point anyway because any Chinaman with a computer knows you can use a simple proxy to get around the 'Great Firewall of China'.

[Kulturkampf]

So it would be impossible? Google made it sound like a choice on their website to remain objective and to do nothing to prevent the results from coming up in such a way.

Google could have elected to drop the sites which would take the Presidential biography links and put FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE etc. with it off.

I am not sure, I would never win an argument concerning the exact ways that Google could do it, because I donot even know what a proxy is.

But regardless, do not justify this bit of them coopearting with totalitarianis.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Chojin

If Chinese people are to use Google at all, they have to comply with Chinese government regulations regarding the internet. Given the option of no Google or limited Google, they chose limited. I don't understand why that is inconsistent with their mantra. Would the less evil option have been to not let Chinese people use Google at all?

Yahoo is working with them, too. The Chinese aren't being deprived of this information without Google. Yahoo has already proven to be pretty eager to make money off of an oppressive regime.

Google didn't want to be squeezed out of that market, so they took what they could get. Again, I don't think they should be critized necessarily for doing this. They're a business. But their real mantra should maybe be "be unevil as possibele, while still making money." Or, as Eric Schmidt said himself, "we did an evil scale."

They could've passed on the cash, taken an ethical stand, and boycotted doing business with the Chinese. Others have decided to do this, partly because the Chinese have proven to be bad investment partners.

This was totally about capitalism, and they shouldn't pretend otherwise.

[Chojin]

To be fair, though, Yahoo sucks at being a search engine.

Kutie, 99% of the 'Googlebombing' sites were on livejournals and the like. You can't really block one without blocking all of livejournal and furthermore, those sites have a right to exist on Google's database. This issue in particular is probably why they didn't explain HOW their flux capacitor works, just that these are the basic reasons for simps to understand.

Also Kevin, maybe you don't understand since you've never run a business, but as businesses go, Google are saints among men. They deserve to be all high and mighty about it in the same way that a necrophiliac doesn't look so bad in hell.

[ziggytrix]

Google bows to Chinese demands

1/25/2006 12:55:55 PM, by Anders Bylund

When the news broke that Google—in contrast to MSN, Yahoo!, and AOL—refused to comply with a DOJ subpoena asking for search information, some observers applauded Google for their strict interpretation of the "don't be evil" mantra. Today, the search giant's squeaky clean image faces a serious challenge, as the company announced a revamped Chinese search site, which openly complies with Chinese government censorship.

The old, uncensored version reportedly ran slowly, allegedly due to interference from the Great Firewall of China, and many controversial queries would return URLs to pages that would never load from within China. Now, such searches will only return results approved by the Chinese government, so that a search for Tiananmen Square will only point to sites supporting the government-approved position on the events there, and there will be a short disclaimer at the bottom of the results page that translates to this:

According to the local law laws and regulations and the policy, partially searches the result does not demonstrate.

Okay, so that's the Babelfish version of the original Chinese, but the gist of the statement is clear: local laws have forced us to block some of your results. That's similar to the disclaimer you get if you search the familiar www.google.com for "kazaa," for example:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

It should be clear by now that Google has already censored some results, even in the good ole US of A. Censorship of Google France and Germany are other commonly cited examples of Google limiting free speech due to local laws and regulations. Furthermore, Google News in China already removed sources offensive to the government before the launch of google.cn. So what gives? Google is putting up a fight in one case, but leaving other battles uncontested. International free speech advocates Reporters Without Borders (RWB) reacted strongly to the news:

"The launch of Google.cn is a black day for freedom of expression in China," the worldwide press freedom organisation said. "The firm defends the rights of US Internet users before the US government but fails to defend its Chinese users against theirs."

"Google's statements about respecting online privacy are the height of hypocrisy in view of its strategy in China. Like its competitors, the company says it has no choice and must obey Chinese laws, but this is a tired argument. Freedom of expression isn't a minor principle that can be pushed aside when dealing with a dictatorship. It's a principle recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and features in the Chinese national constitution itself."

Google defends its position as an attempt to change the Chinese system from within; they claim that it is better to comply with the appropriate laws and be able to provide some kind of service, giving them a platform from which they can reach the people of China, rather than to break the law and get shut down entirely.

"While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission," the company stated.

RWB's point about Google's hypocrisy looks spot on: the company is bending and twisting the language of its own mission statement in an effort to make it look like going into the Chinese market is the Right Thing To Doâ„¢, even under heavy censorship. From our vantage point here at the Orbiting HQ, it looks like an effort to justify going after the almighty Yuan before someone else starts to dominate that market. And what about the hard-line attitude to that American subpoena? According to Search Engine Watch editor Danny Sullivan, comparing that to the Chinese situation is not an apples-to-apples proposition:

[W]hat about the entire hypocrisy of not bending to US law but doing so with China. That's not the case. In the action with the Department Of Justice, Google has not disobeyed a law. US law allows people or organizations to be subpoenaed. People also have the right to argue they shouldn't be forced to be a witness in a case. Google's following the law in arguing against being forced to provide information. It's perfectly legal to do that. Ultimately, the case will be decided. Google may be ordered to hand over material. If so, it will do so—or it will face penalties under US law.

Sullivan's beef with google.cn is that he'd rather see Google stonewalling the Chinese demands until the government changes its policies and does away with censorship altogether. Now, Google may be huge, rich, and important, but there are limits to the power of a single company, no matter how huge. If the US government threatened to impose an embargo on China and force all American interests to pull out of that market, it might have an impact, but that would surely have a negative impact on the US economy as well. Can't we all just get along?

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060125-6051.html

[Chojin]

Yeah. It's fucking China, not your school principal.

[AChimp]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

So it would be impossible? Google made it sound like a choice on their website to remain objective and to do nothing to prevent the results from coming up in such a way.

Google could have elected to drop the sites which would take the Presidential biography links and put FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE etc. with it off.

I am not sure, I would never win an argument concerning the exact ways that Google could do it, because I donot even know what a proxy is.

But regardless, do not justify this bit of them coopearting with totalitarianis.

As Chojin said, Google is not going to alter their database because of a few instances. The keyword "failure" bringing up W's biography as its first result was completely objective; a computer algorithm can't be anything but that because that's what was on the fucking Internet.

Google is not altering their database in any way for China, either. They are merely blocking a specific set of keywords, and 99% of the Chinese already know how to circumvent the government controls through a chain of proxies longer than the cocks you swallow every night.

So before you start spouting your ignorance on yet another topic, go out and get a computer science degree so you can understand how search engines work.

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by Chojin

To be fair, though, Yahoo sucks at being a search engine.

Kutie, 99% of the 'Googlebombing' sites were on livejournals and the like. You can't really block one without blocking all of livejournal and furthermore, those sites have a right to exist on Google's database. This issue in particular is probably why they didn't explain HOW their flux capacitor works, just that these are the basic reasons for simps to understand.

Also Kevin, maybe you don't understand since you've never run a business, but as businesses go, Google are saints among men. They deserve to be all high and mighty about it in the same way that a necrophiliac doesn't look so bad in hell.

How are they Saints when they are being called before Congress incquirign their cooperation to distort the truth in China?

If they are Saints, it wuold be equivlent to MOther Theresa cooperating and raising the morale of the Commuist thugs in Beijing or Moscow. It is literally that equivalent.

But, what do I know? I am a simp.

You'd think they wuold be able to drop participating sites in the defrauding off.

[Pub Lover]

I found your post hard to understand as it was written so poorly.

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

...it wuold be equivlent to MOther Theresa cooperating and raising the morale of the Commuist thugs in Beijing or Moscow.

Um, Mother Teresa wanted to help everybody, the order she established "spread all over the world, including the former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries." So she kinda did help the morale of Communists because she was a nice person & wanted to help people, rather than kill them & sell their corpses for as much money as possible.

[Kulturkampf]

Originally Posted by Pub Lover

I found your post hard to understand as it was written so poorly.

Um, Mother Teresa wanted to help everybody, the order she established "spread all over the world, including the former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries." So she kinda did help the morale of Communists because she was a nice person & wanted to help people, rather than kill them & sell their corpses for as much money as possible.

Are you a coherent human being?

When I say Communist thugs in Beijing and Moscow, I am not talking about random civilians.

Soemtimes, in the news, it says "Washington is moving to do this," "Moscow plans on doing this," etc. and it means: "the political body is taking an action in this country."

I am sure Mother Theresa woudl liek to minister to the impoverished and the poor people of these states, but what I am saying is that aid is beign given to the Communist governments.

[Sethomas]

She would, but she's dead.

[Pub Lover]

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

When I say Communist thugs in Beijing and Moscow, I am not talking about random civilians.

My apologies, you did not make that clear in the poorly worded post that I replied to.

Originally Posted by Kulturkampf

Are you a coherent human being?

Yes, I am a coherent human being, in so far as that sentence makes limited sense. Unfortunately, I do not believe you to be such, for you are an ignorant cunt, sirrah. Good Day.

Edit: A minor transgression of BBcoding needed to repaired.