Google stops censoring its search engine in China

[Shekwan]

Google has stopped censoring its search engine results in China. Excellent news for Chinese citizens for obvious reasons.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8581393.stm

Google has stopped censoring its search results in China, ignoring warnings by the country's authorities.

The US company said its Chinese users would be redirected to the uncensored pages of its Hong Kong website.

In January, Google had complained about a "sophisticated cyber attack originating from China".

Chinese government officials had warned Google repeatedly that it would face consequences if it did not comply with the country's censorship rules.

Good to see Google has some balls. I tried it out myself and looked up "tiananmen square massacre" on www.google.cn - http://images.google.com.hk/images?...&oq=tianem&gs_rfai=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi

What sort of repercussions are on the way though for Google?

 

[bigdog5994]

What can China do about it?

 

[Formaldehyde]

It doesn't really have anything to do with Google's so-called "balls", or actually a complete lack thereof until quite recently. After all, they initially agreed to all of China's censorship requests.

And as far as the repercussions are concerned:

If Google leaves China, the company could end up permanently cutting itself off from what many believe to be a key world market. Google's competitors aren't leaving China, and there's no reason to believe Google's actions will inspire other Western companies to follow its lead.

Google may have reservations about continuing to deal with China, but shouldn't the company have even greater reservations over cutting itself off from such a huge base of potential customers? Moreover, what will Google stockholders think if the company does announce it's pulling out of China on Monday?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Good for them. I heard they were re-thinking their position on Chinese censorship. When their AI takes over the world, I think it'll usher in a kind of stupendously boring benevolent totalitarianism, like Idiocracy with less violence.

Cleo

 

[Formaldehyde]

The tipping point appeared to be the cyber attacks that Google believes were instituted by the Chinese government which are mentioned in the OP article.

Google is releasing information about a “highly sophisticated and targeted attack” on their corporate infrastructure that occurred last month. The attack originated in China and resulted in the “theft of intellectual property from Google.” In light of the attack Google is making sweeping changes to its Chinese operations.

Google is releasing some information about these attacks to the public. The company says that a minimal amount of user information was compromised, but has come to the alarming conclusion that the attacks were targeting the information of Chinese human rights activists. Google found that these attacks were not just going after Google’s data, but were also targeting at least twenty other major companies spanning sectors including Internet, finance, chemicals, and more. Google has also discovered that phishing attacks have been used to compromise the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists around the world.

 

[Shekwan]

It doesn't really have anything to do with Google's so-called "balls", or actually a complete lack thereof until quite recently. After all, they initially agreed to all of China's censorship requests.

They could lose all their trade in China. Thats pretty gutsy in my book. They could have easily just left it be, maybe just upped security to stop cyber attacks, so more credit to them.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I agree that finally taking a stand is better than never doing so. But as the article I posted above points out, it is highly doubtful any other seach engine will follow suit...

 

[bathsheba666]

Given the Chinese judicial system, I guess a sentenced bullet in the head is not out of the question.

An interesting litmus test, and a propitious time for China to pose to the west their attitude to freedom.....wgaf.

 

[emzie]

The entire time they've been grandstanding about censorship in China, they've been working with Australia to filter search results. This is not to mention google.cn has been a total failure.

 

[Shekwan]

I agree that finally taking a stand is better than never doing so. But as the article I posted above points out, it is highly doubtful any other seach engine will follow suit...

Maybe this isn't as big a deal as I thought - is google as popular a search engine in China as it here in the Western world?

The entire time they've been grandstanding about censorship in China, they've been working with Australia to filter search results. This is not to mention google.cn has been a total failure.

There is a key difference though - Australia is a democracy. Their government has a popular mandate to censor the internet.

When you say that google.cn is a failure do you mean it isn't used in China?

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Google is now going to serve out of Hong Kong which has a different set of laws regarding censorship.

The entire time they've been grandstanding about censorship in China, they've been working with Australia to filter search results. This is not to mention google.cn has been a total failure.

Australia is an entirely different situation in just about every way.

Google.cn had 35% marketshare. That's not a total failure by any means and their demographic is the fastest growing and most lucrative. It was the only real competitor to Baidu.

 

[emzie]

By total failure I mean google came in, spent billions of dollars only to fail to overtake Baidu. My impression is that Baidu didn't have to spend comparable money to sustain their place in the market.

I question of Australia really has a popular mandate to censor the internet, and even if it did, that's no justification. If a majority of parents wanted to remove content from a library, it doesn't make the action any less one of censorship.

 

[Shekwan]

I question of Australia really has a popular mandate to censor the internet, and even if it did, that's no justification. If a majority of parents wanted to remove content from a library, it doesn't make the action any less one of censorship.

Yes its definitely still censorship, but the government action in doing so is far more legitimate than an autocracy doing the same thing. If the Australian people think that their government is going too far with the censorship they can do something about it, the Chinese don't have the same ability to.

 

[Luckymoose]

Google has more stomping power than China anyway. Won't be too long before Sergey is the most powerful man on the planet.

 

[Masada]

I'm just waiting for google to start trolling back with cyber attacks.

 

[Zelig]

The entire time they've been grandstanding about censorship in China, they've been working with Australia to filter search results. This is not to mention google.cn has been a total failure.

Google.com censors US search results as well, FWIW.

Google's stance on the DMCA: "Regardless of whether we may be liable for such infringement under local country law or United States law, our response to these notices may include removing or disabling access to material claimed to be the subject of infringing activity and/or terminating subscribers."

 

[wilycoyote]

Not worth much. There is a huge difference between censorship of copyrighted material due to piracy and your own national history.

 

[amadeus]

If Google removes its censorship options and China blocks Google, how is that better than having a censored Google? Even a censored Google still serves better for those in China wishing to dissent from the government.

 

[lishiping84]

well. this is just a business decision....

 

[Tee Kay]

Good on Google. Too bad it can't last.

There is a key difference though - Australia is a democracy. Their government has a popular mandate to censor the internet.

No it doesn't.

In a democracy we (well, not me, other people) select our "representatives". These representatives once they get into parliament can do what they want without these actions actually being directly supported by the people. A bill only has to pass through other representatives, not a referendum.