

Google, do not take Chinese netizens hostage - affiliator
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91344/6873383.html

======
jhickner
"The Chinese society has generally less information bearing capacity than
developed countries such as the U.S., which is an objective reality that no
one can deny."

The concept of societal "information bearing capacity" blows my mind. What a
fascinating and bizarre rationalization. So inside that mindset, preventing
access to information is a a public service!

~~~
est
Chinese here.

This kind of BS derives from a more common theory: Chinese people don't
deserve democracy because they are not well educated. It's stated on many
official newspapers and comments. TFA is just a little elaboration. You can
find even funnier nonsense everyday everywhere from Chinese politics news.

The CCP behavior is hilarious to watch, Internet users in China loving posting
pre-1949 propaganda from CCP, something like Xinhua Daily says 'One-party rule
is disastrous'.

Here's an example

[http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=1946%20%E6%96%B0%E5%8D%8E%E...](http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=1946%20%E6%96%B0%E5%8D%8E%E6%97%A5%E6%8A%A5%E4%B8%80%E5%85%9A%E7%8B%AC%E8%A3%81%E9%81%8D%E5%9C%B0%E6%98%AF%E7%81%BE)

~~~
potatolicious
The saddest part is I know many Chinese in my age group who would cheer this
article on, and commend the author for having the courage to stand up to
American imperialism.

I think many of us expected popular support for the Communist regime to drop
over time - but we're seeing the opposite, and that's gravely concerning.

~~~
wavesplash
Same here. Oddly it seems the older generation was much more flexible in their
thinking.

What's interesting is how agile the CCP has become. We call it 'communist' but
it no longer resembles any of the Marxist ideals we usually associate with it.
They react quickly and have been using capitalism/modernization/nation-
building as a very effective carrot. This isn't the old stagnant hard-line
Soviet communism by any measure.

~~~
DrJokepu
I don't think anyone seriously believes that China is a communist country (in
practice). It's a good old-fashioned dictatorship.

------
CapitalistCartr
"Such politicization was not provoked by China, but imposed by the U.S. and
the west onto China."

Wow, this isn't even good propaganda. I wrote better BS than this for class
papers. More believable, anyway.

I guess I should detail a rebuttal. China engaged in an act of war (attack) on
a private company, Grossly unethical should not go ignored, and certainly not
cooperated with. If the people of China don't like the outcome, they should
consider what their government is doing. If you shoot at me, don't be
surprised if I stop coming by your house. Sorry if the other members of your
household don't like it.

------
pyre
I noticed that no where in the article is there any mention of the actual
reason that Google came out with this announcement (i.e. they were (cyber)
attacked by sources that were presumably linked with the Chinese government).
It seems to only be talking about censorship and comparing China to other
Western countries.

~~~
coderdude
If I were a Chinese citizen I'd avoid mentioning my government at all costs.

~~~
est
We (Chinese) have already tried that for what, 2000 years.

The problem with Chinese authorities through out history is, you don't look
for troubles, but troubles look for you.

------
onoj
I live in china. I have lived here for 11 years. I am western. I have friends
who are in Shanghai and Beijing they are fully Chinese and either own
companies or are judges or (sometimes) criminals. At no time and in now way
have these people been shy about criticizing the government or swearing at the
traffic jams created by state visits etc. At no time have I seen or
experienced censorship. In many drunken evenings or in business meetings any
and all topics are discussed openly. There are rules however, yes, the
government needs to be involved in things. Yes it can act in unusual ways -
for example banning online games. (seemingly because one high level official
did not like the amount of time their son was spending on WoW.) Yes minorities
are persecuted and yes they shoot criminals. It's is a long way from perfect.
But... 1.3 billion people. There are 12 cities in china with a pop of more
than 5 million (in the city local area) . These cities have highly complex
local governments which do not always follow the central government. China is
a lot less one country than it seems and it is certainly not policed or
controlled with any obvious force. In many ways it is also free. Sometime more
free than other places.. this may sound weird but Hong Kong is again the
freest place to do business in the World. It is many regions, many languages
and cultures. As in the US, the government is distinct from the people. And
the government has a hard job keeping it together. The only thing I agree with
in the article is that going the Russian way would be bad for China. As for
Google... as always the real story is probably much different from the one
told by either side. But i am more inclined to believe it is something silly
rather than serious.

------
Dilpil
Perhaps Google's decisions have nothing to do with ideology. Perhaps they are
legitimately concerned about IP theft and security, and are simply exiting
china in the most PR friendly way possible.

------
bryansum
I find it highly ironic that their criticism implores that Google "stop
launching surprise attacks against China." Also very interesting is how
Google's recent actions are viewed as some sort of US government-sponsored
attempt to export US values.

------
padmanabhan01
Ok. A devil's advocate question. If US government can monitor US citizen's
emails, why shouldn't Chinese govt monitor the emails of Chinese citizens? Of
course, there is difference in what the monitoring will lead to in the 2
cases, but the ability to monitor is what it is. right?

~~~
est
> why shouldn't Chinese govt monitor the emails of Chinese citizens?

At least the US had a freaking law about the action. The prc government on the
other hand, plays trinity in market: rule maker, judge, _and_ player.

There's a joke on twitter, the government rape you, then sue you for
prostitution

~~~
freetard
> At least the US had a freaking law about the action

Not on wire tapping, they made a law afterward though to forgive everyone.

------
netcan
" _The Chinese society has generally less information bearing capacity than
developed countries such as the U.S., which is an objective reality that no
one can deny._ "

------
runn1ng
I suggest we take news from People's Daily - the official list of Communist
Party of China - with a grain of salt.

~~~
affiliator
It's interesting to read their spin.

~~~
delackner
During historical conflicts between the US and nations that didn't have
freedom of the press, there are countless stories of the other side's
government believing that because their own media was a total sham, regardless
of our statements to the contrary, our own media must therefore be full of
lies.

The common response to this sort of story is to laugh and say how little they
understood the power of a truly free press. And this is true for its part, but
it is also true that there _is_ goverment and now corporate propaganda mixed
into the "reputable" news. Not of the same scale or variety, but it is there
nonetheless.

~~~
blasdel
Our media has the tremendous courage to paraphrase Government and Corporate
press releases in inverted-pyramid form instead of simply reprinting them. I'm
sure you've noticed how unbelievably bad science reporting is, but I don't
think you realize that _most other subjects are even worse_.

They're all stenographers, from the hungriest PR flack to Woodward and
Bernstein (they were spoonfed everything by the fucking FBI!).

------
fauigerzigerk
"Therefore, implementing monitoring according to a country's national context
is what any government has to do."

There are two big questions:

1) What legitimizes a government to to define "national context" and the will
of the people? Or simply, what legitimizes government?

2) If government is legitimate, what are the limits of its mandate where an
individual's fundamental rights are concerned?

Western governments can claim to express the will of the people because it is
the people who have elected them (directly or indirectly). The Chinese
government's power is based on a military campaign many decades ago. It cannot
claim to speak for the chinese people. The laws it makes are nothing but the
the will of a clique of people with guns.

The second question is a very difficult one. Where do fundamental individual
rights come from? Who defines them with any legitimacy? Does it have something
to do with nature or psychology or are the relative to culture? I don't know,
but I do know that I want to claim individual rights independently of any
collective expression of opinion and power, and everyone else I know wants to
do that as well.

If western governments run a system of censorship it may in many cases be a
violation of fundamental individual rights. That doesn't change the fact that
it may at the same time be a legitimate expression of the will of the people.
It may be the will of the people to violate fundamental individual rights.
That's the contradiction we in the west have to grapple with, and it's totally
different from the problem the Chinese have with their clique of men with guns
holding them hostage.

------
newhouseb
This article equates censorship to surveillance. I don't want to say one is
worse than the other, but it's kind of apples and oranges, and makes her
argument about the US irrelevant - not to mention that she either wasn't aware
or was ignoring the fact that GOOG is leaving because partly it is sick of
being the target of gov't intel efforts.

~~~
thwarted
Censorship isn't possible without surveillance, at the very least someone
caring enough to act to censor when they observe something, and the only
reason for surveillance is to control actions, which is censorship. Of course,
these can be used for "good", surveillance like security cameras that document
who approaches your house, and censorship like parents controlling what their
kids watch on television, but I'm not so sure that you can have one without
the other. If there is no censorship, there is no reason to survey, if there
is no surveillance, attempts at censorship will be ineffective.

~~~
newhouseb
I see at more as akin to

> Asking for permission

versus

> Asking for forgiveness rather than permission

With censorship you are prevented from obtaining information, with
surveillance you (might) be punished for obtaining information afterwards. If
the only reason for surveillance is to control actions (which is censorship),
then do you define all law enforcement as censorship? We're kind of
digressing, but my point was that it's ridiculous to assert that surveillance
of US international calls is worse than not allowing your entire country to
surf wikipedia...

------
eznet
Since the site is currently down, I had to view the cached Google copy...
Chrome recommended it...

------
milkshakes
my favorite part is where the article suggests that _google_ should "stop
launching surprise attacks". what did they expect?

~~~
mfukar
Apparently nothing. :)

------
kevingadd
The title of the article is oddly chosen. Google's customers can only be held
'hostage' by actions taken by the Chinese government. Google is not ceasing to
allow customers access to vital data or services - they're simply refusing to
follow the arbitrary guidelines set in place by China, and China is blocking
access to Google services in response.

So, I agree - Google definitely shouldn't take Chinese netizens or their data
as hostages. That's the job of the Chinese government.

This also illustrates how Google's earlier actions (doing business in China in
hopes of encouraging the nation to 'open up') have had the opposite effect:
Google has handed China a highly effective bargaining chip in the form of
their customers' data. If Google had never offered these services in the first
place, it would be impossible for their customers to be 'held hostage' by the
Chinese government.

To some extent this situation is different for Microsoft - Ballmer was
somewhat correct to say in recent discussion that his company has no reason to
withdraw from China. The Chinese government has no easy way to hold his
customers' data hostage - once you've installed Windows and Microsoft Word
onto your PC, it's going to keep working and letting you access your data
unless you do something to change that (like connecting to the internet or
installing Green Dam), regardless of any disagreement Microsoft may have with
your local government. It is only Google's heavy reliance on 'the cloud' for
storing users' data that makes this possible.

------
bluedanieru
"Several days before Google declared that it planned to withdraw from China,
the U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton held a small evening dinner party.
The guests she invited were just the leaders of the powerful information
enterprises such as the Microsoft, Twitter and Google. The two affairs were so
close that people would unavoidably think they were connected. After this
political affliction, Google has already made itself in an awkward situation.
If it withdraws from China, it will lose a market consisting of 360 million
netizens; if it does not, it will be hijacked by the U.S. government."

So the People's Daily is accusing a US _corporation_ of being a tool of the US
_government_.

Don't I fucking wish.

------
ChinaWins
Bottom line - Baidu outclassed them and they needed to find a way to get out
without losing face or having to explain why they were in second place in the
largest internet market in the world.

Every other US company has been able to survive except whiny little Google:
"Boo hoo, they stole my IP"! Tell that to GE, who are doing just fine in
China, thank you very much, IP or no IP.

Google should grow some *alls, stand and fight, or gracefully admit defeat
instead of whining.

~~~
potatolicious
Typical Chinese train of thought - from one Chinese guy to another, drop the
macho hyper-aggressive posturing, it's not sexy, and the chicks don't dig it.

I did find one point interesting though, and I'm assuming you're a young,
internet-savvy Chinese guy:

> _"Every other US company has been able to survive except whiny little
> Google"_

Does this include the myriad of US websites that have been blatantly ripped
off by Chinese domestic companies? I'm assuming you're a user of Xiaonei (an
almost verbatim clone of Facebook, including UI and page design, even color
scheme) - can you defend the blatantly unoriginal, downright thieving tactics
of Chinese tech companies when it comes to "competing" with their American
counterparts? Perhaps this Chinese "outclassing" of yours is simply because
many Chinese companies never put in the resources to develop anything of their
own, preferring to steal and pilfer instead.

Perhaps Google is leaving because, as every other nation (not only the West)
knows, the Chinese as a whole have fundamentally no respect for hard work. As
a Chinese I am ashamed to admit this, but the truth deserves to be told
regardless of how it reflects on my people: Chinese culture has no respect for
the work of others, and ripping off is so normal that one hardly bats an
eyelash. Whatever Google does in China will merely be copied verbatim, there's
almost no point in staying in a market where all of your hard work counts for
just about nothing, and there's no rule of law to protect this work from
unscrupulous thieves.

[edit] Also, the only reason GE is "doing fine" is because nobody's yet
figured out how to clone entire power plants. Look at companies like Apple,
who originally had to import iPhone screens from Germany to avoid having the
designs stolen and sold to the highest bidder by merely manufacturing it in
China. This is embarrassing and shameful to me as a Chinese - we are
_rightfully_ known as a nation that cannot be trusted, cannot be respectful of
what is rightfully someone else's. We are known globally as a nation of
unscrupulous people who will throw away all semblance of civility and justice
to succeed - I am ashamed to be associated with this, but yet it _does_
reflect our business culture very accurately.

Instead of constantly looking at every move like a threat against China, and
instead of looking at everyone like an enemy, perhaps China's greatest enemy
is itself: we are overly aggressive, we always seek to win by someone else's
destruction, and we seem incapable of forming transactions where one side
doesn't get screwed. We are _not_ team players, and this is going to be a very
severe limitation on the advancement of China as a whole until we culturally
un-fuck ourselves. Drop the constant victim complex - not everyone is out to
get you.

