
Google’s CEO Says Tests of Censored Chinese Search Engine Turned Out Great - tareqak
https://www.wired.com/story/wired-25-sundar-pichai-china-censored-search-engine/
======
pdkl95
> “But we also follow the rule of law in every country,”

No. you probably make a good effort to follow the _letter of the law_ in the
jurisdictions you work in. I'm sure you employ many talented lawyers to
minimize your legal risks. However, the "rule of law" is a separate concept
that your businesses _obviously_ ignore.

If you respected everyone being ruled equally under _laws_ (or law-like
concepts in non-government situations), enforcement actions like closing
accounts for would involve some type of _due process_ where the accused has an
opportunity to face the accusation, see and rebut any evidence, and make a
reasonable defense. Closing accounts unilaterally by your edict while refusing
to offer any explanation beyond mumbling vaguely about "TOS violations" is a
clear example of being _ruled by men_ , now laws.

------
schuke
As a Chinese consumer I desperately need a viable alternative to Baidu. A
consored Google would do so much good by bringing proper competition to the
market.

I know censorship sucks. But peole concerned about it should fight it by means
that minimze harm to users. Stronger encryption, tools that bypass the great
firewall, standards and protocols against censorship and dictator influence,
these would be a lot more meaningful than bashing a single company and a
single product.

All companies that do business in China contribute to censorship and
oppression indirectly by paying tax. The point have always been and should be
makig sure these businesses bring a net benefit to the people.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> But peole concerned about it should fight it by means that minimze harm to
> users. Stronger encryption, tools that bypass the great firewall, standards
> and protocols against censorship and dictator influence, these would be a
> lot more meaningful than bashing a single company and a single product.

Those people are building those things. _Google_ could build those things --
and then people could use the real version of Google from inside of China and
there would be no need for a censored one.

~~~
schuke
Before those things are built, what should my mother do to avoid being killed
by those fake medical ads on Baidu? How should I explain to my mother she
should always toggle on the VPN that doesn’t always work and use the search
engine that she can’t even pronouce to avoid being scammed? And how can we
scale up that effort two hundred million times so that all elderly people in
China can save their hard-earned money and their health? And while all that
happns how do we make sure the Party will simply sit and watch and not further
restrict access?

~~~
p49k
What an absurd false dichotomy. “Either let Google assist the Chinese
government in censoring information or my Grandmother will die.” Seriously?
It’s the government’s responsibility to prohibit false advertising, and in an
environment that lacks such regulation, there’s no reason to think Google will
do a better job of self-policing such ads than Baidu.

~~~
schuke
It’s the government’s responsibility yes but the government isn’t the only
effective measure against false ads. The market works too so why not have
both? Isn’t it even more necessary to have other resorts when the government
isn’t elected and does not work? There of course is reason to think Google
will do better because people are literally crying for an alternative. It’s a
no brainer for anyone who wants to compete in China.

~~~
p49k
A “market based” solution makes no sense here. Both Google and Baidu are going
to optimize for ad revenue, which means doing only the minimum in terms of
self-policing to avoid government regulation, just as Google, Facebook and
others have done in every other country in which they operate, including the
US. The fact that Google is entering this market in the first place, in
essence putting profit over ethics, weakens your point further.

------
mc32
They're not going to leave that kind of money on the table. This is way more
than the potential from "project maven." They cannot ignore this market and
that market will not take no for an answer, so you have a CEO who will
tergiversate on this issue.

Apple would do the same if the CCP/PLA came down and said, we need a way to
look into user data. They will hem and haw and make noise but in the end they
will capitulate (because if they don't they will cede the market to a domestic
provider or a competitor who will sooner or later enter their home market).

His biggest concern will probably be more with regard to keeping his IP from
getting exfiltrated.

~~~
slivym
I think this is a mis-reading of how China conducts business. China isn't
interested in just establishing back doors in the dominant players in the
market. They're interested in both dictating to foreign companies what they
must censor and report, but also they're interested in establishing local
competitors that will have state sponsored advantages in the local market in
the long term in order to achieve economic dominance.

So the question here isn't whether Google will pay the price of sacrificing
it's principles for market share. It's whether Google will pay the price of
sacrificing its principles for a short term opportunity of a market at the
cost of possible IP theft that could threaten its existence internationally.

Oh, and that's before we get on to the question of whether what China is
asking for is limited to China, or whether once established Google can start
asking for deprioritizing of tiananmen square mentions on Google in Europe or
America.

------
ocdtrekkie
WIRED, unfortunately, is more of a press release outlet than a real news
outfit. :| Pichai got softballed a few questions by Steven Levy, a guy who has
written a glowing book about the company and somewhat regularly writes in-
depth exclusive puff pieces for Google.

It's really disappointing this is the outlet Pichai finally chose to spoke to,
but it's understandable why: WIRED wasn't going to ask him anything he wasn't
ready to answer.

------
fjsolwmv
> “But we also follow the rule of law in every country,”

How can one speak of "rule" of law in an autocratic non-democratic country?
The Chinese people in no way consented to anything like this "law", and to
follow it is an act of oppression against the Chinese people.

Would Pinchai gas Jews in Nazi Germany, murder gays in Uganda, and stone
schoolgirls in villages in his native India to follow the "rule of law"?

~~~
echevil
Well, from the point of views of a normal Chinese citizen, Google’s presence
is always welcome. It better be censored or it’ll be kicked out pretty soon.
Though people doesn’t like these censorship, vast majority of Chinese simply
doesn’t care at all. As a recent NY times report mentioned, even when young
people are given the tools to bypass the censorship, few of them actually used
it, and almost nobody used it to access western news reports. Censorship is
not great but it’s no where close to be comparable with gassing Jews or
murdering gays, and fighting censorship simply has super low priority for most
Chinese. HN can be accessed from China freely but very few Chinese come here
or even knows abou it. Otherwise the sentiments in the comments would be very
different :)

------
onepremise
Man, getting really close to selling all my stake in Google. This CEO is
turning out to be a really big 'tool'.

------
wei_jok
Am I the only one who is worried when he said:

“When you're so early with a powerful technology, sometimes you have to self-
regulate.”

~~~
thelasthuman
surrender of the commons to the private wishes of the powerful.

------
fjsolwmv
> We are compelled by our mission [to] provide information to everyone, and
> [China is] 20 percent of the world's population.”

Notice how he removed "the world's information" from Google's mission, since
Chinese are only allowed to see CCP-approved inform.

------
ironmagma
Of course one can. But should one?

