
Google, don't politicalize yourself — China's official news agency - pc
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-03/21/c_13219289.htm
======
jrockway
_In fact, no country allows unrestricted flow on the Internet of pornographic,
violent, gambling or superstitious content, or content on government
subversion, ethnic separatism, religious extremism, racialism, terrorism and
anti-foreign feelings._

The US basically does. The government never censors the Internet; producing
child pornography or running an illegal gambling site may be illegal, but
there is no filter on Google to prevent you from finding those things.
Terrorism, anti-foreign feelings, racism, government subversion, ethnic
separatism, etc., are reprehensible, but are protected speech here. The
government could find itself in trouble if it prevented someone from
publishing something about one of those topics ("prior restraint"), and has
lost many cases where it has tried to remove this information after the fact.

Basically, anything goes except libel, obscenity with no cultural value, and
speech to incite imminent lawless action.

So basically Xinhua, get a clue. China is the outlier.

~~~
benologist
Internet censorship: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship>

Pervasive: Burma, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, People's Republic of China,
Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam

Substantial :Australia, Bahrain, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, United Arab
Emirates, Yemen

Nominal and others: Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia,
Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany,
Ghana, Ireland, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Malaysia , Mexico, Morocco,
Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden,
Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America

Specifically the US, although not much:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Unit...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States)

~~~
mark_h
Man that makes sad -- go Australia :S Although, note that at this stage it is
still "nominal" in practice while the plans are yet to be implemented.

------
jbellis
Pretty smooth of the PRC to redefine this as "Google trying to make a
political statement" rather than "Google deciding it can't do business in a
country that sponsors attacks on its systems."

~~~
daeken
I see no reason why these two are mutually exclusive. If I boycott a company
due to disliking their business practices, can I not also be making a
statement?

In fact, I support Google in this because it _is_ making a statement, even if
that's not the primary intention.

------
barredo
It's not about aligning with certain politics (!= policies).

It's about something higher, about human rights.China should not be giving any
lessons to anyone about this kind of stuff.

I guess China fears that Google's movement will start a pattern of western
tech/internet companies leaving China.

Would Chinese companies be able to fill the void leave behind be those
companies? I'm not sure.

We are about to watch a game of _victimhood_ (sorry, not sure if that's the
word) played by the Chinese Govt. Let's see how that works.

~~~
chrischen
Not just tech companies I'm sure. For example HSBC moved it's world
headquarters to London before Hong Kong was handed over to the PRC.

Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsbc#History>

If your company is in China, it's implicitly controlled by the gov't since it
has authoritarian rule.

~~~
jhancock
That's not a correct statement. Your Chinese company has the rights set forth
by their laws. It is true their judicial process is prone to more corruption
than in the U.S. But thats spotty and changing as well. You just can't always
count on winning a court battle in China because your rich and connected
anymore.

I have witnessed very powerful Chinese officials and businessmen not take
action against a rival because the action would have been unlawful and they
didn't want to risk the penalties. I have seen mid-level government officials
block attempted actions from senior officials because the actions didn't
follow the rules.

~~~
chrischen
I'm assuming the CCP can win a court battle because it's rich and well
connected in government (well, if dominance can be described as "well
connected").

~~~
jhancock
The CCP _is_ the government. The distinction is that government is operated
with officials that sit on the administration side and others that sit on the
"party" side. They all have their functions.

Here's an anecdote for you: a young chinese lady contracted HIV from a
hospital blood transfusion. When it was found out, she was fired from her job
and her family threw her out.

She sued. Not just her employer and the government hospital but the government
as well for not protecting her. She won.

There are quite a few stories of the little person going up against government
and winning.

A few months ago, a waitress at a restaurant (hotel) was being accosted by two
drunk men..assuming she was about to get raped, she stabbed them. I think one
of them died. Turns out they were high level local officials. The girl was
given leniency by the court as they understood it was self-defense.

------
rscott
I would never have found this and appreciate you posting it.

Fascinating, though I hope history will disagree with the message of this
piece.

~~~
benologist
I'm not sure history should disagree with it. The underlying message is that
corporations shouldn't be playing politics, and that's an increasingly popular
public sentiment in the USA as well (or the internet amplifies it).

How is Google trying to manipulate foreign government different from the
health industry lobbying for their own interests?

~~~
nkassis
No company should be forced to do something it's executives and employees find
morally wrong. They are not actively trying to usurp the Chinese government
and I don't see anyone claiming Google is bribing people and push for self
serving laws in Beijing.

Lobbying can be ok if it's done in a fair and open matter. Which it is not.
Lets not forget that corporations have employees and those employees are often
better off when their corporation has an easier time doing business.

~~~
benologist
While I agree in general with what you're saying I don't think most of it
applies to Google's situation.

\- Google was never forced to do anything. They chose to. The cost of doing
business in any location is abiding by any number of laws that businesses must
evaluate to see if they're willing or profitably able to operate within.

\- They didn't seem to have many moral problems for the first 4 years.

\- They very publicly announced they had a problem with the situation and
tried to force the Chinese governments hand with an ultimatum - change the
laws or lose Google's business.

~~~
fnid2
_\- They didn't seem to have many moral problems for the first 4 years._

The reason Google didn't have a problem for the first 4 years, is because for
the first 4 years it wasn't clear who was going to win the search engine war
in China. Now it is clear, the winner is Baidu.

Google is leaving China because they have clearly lost in China and rather
than take second place, they are inventing a principled stand and forcing
China to kick them out.

Baidu has 3/4 of the search market in China and it's growing.[1] Rather than
Google search traffic hitting zero, they're leaving in a political charade.
What better excuse for losing to Baidu?

[1]
[http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/12/28/googl...](http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/12/28/google-
v-baidu-which-company-will-win-china/)

~~~
gscott
30% of a market the size of China doesn't seem like loosing. Companies survive
off of much less, 1% of the market is often plenty enough.

~~~
fnid2
Except they have barely half that percentage and it's declining.

~~~
gscott
The problem is dealing with a socialist country you never really own what you
have made. They can come in anytime and take away your manufacturing plant,
confiscate your physical goods, or block your website. It always happens
without fail.

------
psyklic
The only thing that I wonder (and fear) about this piece -- is whether this is
the only slant on the story that Chinese citizens will be allowed to access.

~~~
fnid2
I fear for the safety of the Google employees who are still there. At best
they are going to lose their jobs -- at worst, their _lives_.

~~~
angstrom
I suspect that's unlikely. Google and it's country specific domains are the
most trafficked sites on the internet. The level of visibility is too high to
make examples of anyone. Worst case scenario they block access and carry on
like nothing changed. Best case, China realizes it must make certain
concessions if it wants to continue growing it's economy and fostering
competition. There is no reason India should be the only billion person
democracy.

~~~
fnid2
How _exactly_ does Google help grow China's economy? I don't really think
China cares much for Google -- not the people or the govt. They won't care to
lose them. I don't see any evidence that they will. Baidu can take care of
whatever crumbs Google leaves behind.

~~~
liuliu
Check out alibaba.com, the website basically do SEO on Google and it visions
itself as a bridge for small business owner in China (manufacturers) to the
global market. By the way, it is a listed company in Hong Kong.

~~~
fnid2
I use alibaba, but I didn't get there through google. Nonetheless, it's a good
example, except that the google that is referring people to alibaba is the US
google.

I should have been clear, how is google.cn benefitting google's economy in a
way that isn't also being covered by baidu or any other search engine for that
matter?

~~~
angstrom
It benefits Chinese users to have competition between Baidu and Google.
Otherwise, there's no reason for improvement. China want's to have a part in
the information economy, not just the manufacturing economy.

~~~
fnid2
_I_ believe improvement is valuable for the sake of improvement. I don't
believe competition is the only reason for improvement. See my comment here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1213199>

~~~
angstrom
Maybe a few centuries into the future, but at this stage we're still focused
on market economies. In your other post you mention betamax vs VHS. You can
build a superior product, but if it's cost is too high it won't fit the market
need. Baidu has captured significant market share in China and has little
reason to spend money innovating. Google has global market share and can
continue to compete and innovate in other markets without the Chinese.

------
chrischen
> It is unfair for Google to impose its own value and yardsticks on Internet
> regulation to China, which has its own time-honored tradition, culture and
> value.

But fair for the CCP to impose it's filtering on the people.

I think the fundamental issue is that they are trying to make improvements
(opening up) to its policies but wants to do it on it's on terms, which is
slightly understandable. "It" being the Chinese communist party. And the
prevailing sentiment among all Chinese is that the west (aka pretty much just
US) is meddling in the "opening up." I mean after what the US did in Iraq, I
can see why they are hostile.

------
ibarrac
They say:

 _In fact, no country allows unrestricted flow on the Internet of
pornographic, violent, gambling or superstitious content, or content on
government subversion, ethnic separatism, religious extremism, racialism,
terrorism and anti-foreign feelings._

Not true, the US allows all this, with very minor exceptions.

~~~
dangrossman
Online gambling is, at least to some degree, illegal in the US

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling>

So are certain types of porn and anti-government websites.

~~~
ibarrac
Yes, online gabling is mostly illegal, thus my "minor exceptions".

But all types of porn except child porn are allowed as far as I know.
Definitely all types of anti-government websites are allowed. The first
amendment confers very strong protection on free speech.

This Chinese news release is trying to mislead. I think the average Chinese
citizen would be shocked to learn the level of freedom of expression and
access to information in the US.

------
natch
Ironic for the Chinese government to talk about obeying laws, when they don't
even obey their own laws.

Maybe Google should point this out to them.

And there's no rule saying companies need to stay out of politics. Even if
there was, Google, from the outset, said it was going to be a different kind
of company.

------
Keyframe
How many people in China have internet access? How many people in China even
know what Google is? How many people in China do even care about all of this?
I may be naive, but I don't see chinese people being vocal on any matter
regarding "their rights" - either they are satisfied (in majority) with their
system and it's not anyone's business outside of China, or they are contempt
but silent about it - which, again, shouldn't be anyone's business outside of
China until they ask for outside help.

~~~
eklitzke
I think that this is an interesting and valid point. My perception from
visiting China and talking to recent mainland immigrants to America is that
most people in China think that their government is basically doing a good
job, and basically looking out for the best interests of the Chinese people.
No one there would argue that everything the government does is in their best
interest, but if you think that the government is doing a good job on most
issues, you'll probably be complacent.

To a certain degree, the same thing is true in America and other western
nations. There are a _lot_ of issues to be upset with, and that most people
would disagree with the government on. Everyone has problems with the
government, and on certain issue most people think the government is wrong
(e.g. most people think that Congress spends money wastefully, and that our
representatives look at more for their own interests than those of their
constituents). But as long as you basically feel that the government is doing
the right things -- and I think most people do, looking at things from a
holistic perspective -- then you're likely to forgive the transgressions of
your government. Or at least you'll limit your disagreement to grumblings,
instead of actively protesting or campaigning against the government.

I would argue that the position of the Chinese people is, if not right, at
least defensible on these grounds. The quality of life has been improving
rapidly in China, and certainly the prestige of the country has been on a huge
upswing for the past twenty years (e.g. in economic terms, the space program,
political power in international diplomacy, etc.). In such an environment you
might not be too worried about Internet censorship (most of which is probably
censoring things you don't really care about). As their expansion catches up
with them, and the rate that China can increase its wealth and prestige slows
down, that will probably change, and people will find more reason to be
concerned with censorship and other human rights issues within China. But that
could be a while off.

------
iamwil
It's a usual stance for China to claim some situation is an internal affair to
block outside meddling.

When the bird flu broke out, China blocked Taiwan's access to the World Health
Organization to get information on how to deal with it--mostly on the grounds
that it is an internal affair.

------
froo
_In fact, no country allows unrestricted flow on the Internet of pornographic,
violent, gambling or superstitious content, or content on government
subversion, ethnic separatism, religious extremism, racialism, terrorism and
anti-foreign feelings._

<sacasm> ...except Sealand </sarcasm>

Anyway, there is a great divide between letting a good majority of this kind
of stuff through vs blocking as much of it as you can (eg, 99.9% vs ~30%)

In both instances you can say that no country is allows unrestricted flow, but
that is not an adequate measuring stick for data flow.

------
cemregr
Has this been machine translated, I wonder why is the English of the article
so poor? News agencies in China don't have anybody who write proper English?

~~~
sipior
"Anybody" is singular, so your last sentence should be: "News agencies in
China don't have anybody who writes proper English?"

------
louislouis
"no matter in which country you conduct business, you have to obey the laws
and regulations there."

Quoted for truth.

~~~
jrockway
That's why they're leaving, so they don't have to obey the oppressive third-
world laws and regulations there.

~~~
louislouis
"we intend to continue R&D work in China and also to maintain a sales presence
there"

Doesn't sound like they're leaving to me. If they were to leave properly they
would shut down all operations and 404 the .cn domain. Instead they've just
redirected and uncensored their services. To me thats just more drama, another
move on the chessboard.

~~~
zaphar
They are no longer serving search from china. That means they are no longer
responsible for censoring those results. China is responsible for censoring
them. China has no laws that say just because you have a presence in our
country you must censor all of your sites on the internet. The redirection is
merely a courtesy to the china users not all of whom by the way are in china.
The Hong Kong site is still censored just this time China has to do it all by
itself without Googles help.

