
Google Plans to Launch Censored Search Engine in China, Leaked Documents Reveal - lingz
https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/google-china-search-engine-censorship/
======
bdammeir
As a former Google employee myself, I have a really hard time connecting these
actions with the company I used to be very proud of working for.

I understand that reaching the Chinese consumer is a huge opportunity, but
drawing the line at refusing to assist in the censorship of 1.4 billion people
seemed like an easy line to draw and stick to. If Google won't stand against
this, won't the rest tumble? I fear a domino affect that won't be possible to
undo.

For the first time in a long time, I am genuinely disappointing at Google and
am questioning thoughts I've had in the past of going back to work for them
again.

------
jarfil
Google is already censoring content in the US and EU, not even the same
results in all countries, and we asked for it, so what's so much different
about following Chinese law?

~~~
twodave
The difference is about the same as purchasing a firearm for self-defense vs.
purchasing a firearm as part of a plan to invade someone else's house.

------
cromwellian
There seems to be a hypocrisy with people upset about censorship on behalf of
China, but don’t seem all that upset about censorship on behalf of the EU (eg
RTBF) or censorship when it supports their politics (eg hate speech)

I don’t support this theoretical move, but asserting Google should pull
out/stay out of China and not obey/comply with local laws, and yet argue that
the EU local laws should have global reach seems unjustified and unequal
respect for sovereignty.

~~~
ForHackernews
China is an authoritarian one-party state with a history of violating the
human rights of its citizens. The EU, for all its bureaucratic flaws, is a
democratic institution with a history of respect for rights and the rule of
law.

So yes, absolutely, there are strong moral reasons to treat EU laws
differently than Chinese laws.

------
est
Reality check: nobody use a mobile app for searching purpose. So either the
whistleblower is misleaded, or it's a slightly different app than just search.

------
bitL
Pity so many corporations in our industry harvested good will of their users,
expecting to never help their oppressors, and a decade later here we are :(

------
bodas
What a dumb idea. They have 0 chance of success in China and it will just
create bad PR everywhere else.

------
spicyusername
We'll, that feels pretty wrong...

~~~
jand
> We'll, that feels pretty wrong...

... to persons who value moral higher than shareholder value. Advertisers will
mostly be happy to enter previously untapped markets.

It is cold, but why should Google care? The times when an publicity stunt like
"dont't be evil" was required to establish a big user base are over.

If it would in any way raise the revenue of google, i assume google would
instantly proclaim another "don't be a dick" COC.

------
aldoushuxley001
I guess Google no longer cares about "Free speech on the web" eh?

~~~
est
I'll believe it when there's free torrent speech on google search results.

------
rathish_g
What is wrong with this? It is as if Google spider bot sits within China.

What is the use of showing the result, if the users can't access the content?
It makes sense to filter the result than showing an 'unauthorised' error on
clicking the link.

------
mtgx
First the military drones, now getting in bed with China, and the law straw
was removing almost every mention of "Don't be evil" from its workers' code of
conduct manual.

I think it's pretty clear at this point Google is willing to sell their own
mothers (and your data) just to keep those profitable quarters up for many
more years.

As more advertisers start preferring Facebook, I think Google will become even
more desperate in regards to what it will be willing to do to increase revenue
and profits quarter after quarter. Expect many big "evil" things to come from
Google in the near future.

~~~
jarfil
> keep those profitable quarters

Isn't it actually illegal for publicly traded companies to do otherwise?

~~~
manigandham
Illegal? No. The principle is "best interests of shareholders" but that has
never meant only profits, especially if the costs of those profits do material
damage to the world those shareholders live in, in which case it's not in the
best interests.

------
sus_007
I think the original article deserves the URL spot.
[https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/google-china-search-
engi...](https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/google-china-search-engine-
censorship/)

------
cromwellian
There seems to be a hypocrisy with people upset about censorship on behalf of
China, but don’t seem all that upset about censorship on behalf of the EU (eg
RTBF) or censorship when it supports their politics (eg hate speech)

I don’t support this theoretical move, but asserting Google should pull
out/stay out of China and not obey/comply with local laws, and yet argue that
the EU local laws should have global reach seems unjustified and unequal
respect for sovereignty.

Let’s face it, the core issue here isn’t free speech and censorship, it’s
speech you like or censorship you like vs those you don’t.

~~~
JohnTHaller
Yes, censoring hate speech and censoring any thought slightly critical of a
repressive regime are exactly the same thing. /s

~~~
cromwellian
Free speech is only valuable if it protects speech you don’t like including
the worst most vile forms of it.

In some societies, criticizing religion, parodying religious icons counts as
bigotry and hate.

American liberals used to be pretty united and in agreement with Voltaire but
it seems things have changed.

