
Google’s censored search engine could actually help Chinese citizens - shard972
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-be-so-quick-to-write-off-googles-censored-search-engine-for-china/2018/08/16/208a518e-a09a-11e8-b562-1db4209bd992_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.741b4e4b6786
======
jackhack
Tacit acceptance of censorship -- is this the logical destination of "don't be
evil?" As if the Chinese people don't deserve truth and dignity; basic human
rights. Along this spectrum of logic we would also argue that the North Korean
"internet" is a good thing, as is all controlled media and news, too.

I find it repugnant to see the people in relatively free Western nations pull
the ladder up after them; as if others don't deserve what we have (but now
obviously take for granted). That's a form of soft bigotry. A condescending
pat on the head and a tut-tutting, as if the simple people of China couldn't
handle freedom and/or don't want it. The Tiananmen Square Massacre wasn't all
that long ago, so we know that the latter is not true.

Obviously this decision is driven by money -- access to markets -- but what
else? What is the ideology that makes this acceptable and justifiable in their
minds, because I cannot understand it.

"Do you participate, or do you stand on the sideline and yell at how things
should be?" \-- Tim Cook

Partnering with evil is evil. Empowering evil is evil. As is ignoring it.

Does anyone doubt that a report of all searchers for forbidden knowledge will
be generated and turned over to Chinese leadership for "followup"?

But there's undoubtedly a lot of money to be made so what do I know.

~~~
chongli
_What is the ideology that makes this acceptable and justifiable in their
minds, because I cannot understand it._

It's cultural relativism. Since every culture can only be judged within the
value structure defined by that culture, every culture is good by default.

It tends to go hand in hand with the view that Western countries are
destroying every other culture and thus are evil. It's a sickness spreading
throughout the West, but in the US in particular.

~~~
snowwrestler
That's not what cultural relativism is and that's not why Google is thinking
about taking this step.

They are thinking about taking this step because:

a) they are a business, China is a huge potential market they will lose if
they don't try to compete for it, and

b) they believe their product does good in the world, and therefore they think
a partial good (partial access to Google) is better than no good (no access to
Google).

Whether b) is true or not is obviously in the eye of the beholder. I tend to
think it's closer to a rationalization of a) than a sober evaluation of the
objective truth.

For those wondering what cultural relativism actually is, it is a useful
mental tool for thinking about the evolution of cultures other than your own.
It is not moral relativism, nor is it a hatred of the west.

~~~
jackhack
>they believe their product does good in the world

Perhaps, but good, for whom? It is useful to ask "What class of people
benefits? Who is harmed?" and is the net change worse that if we did not
meddle? Does it give power to some, at the expense of others?

------
sidibe
Why do people assume China will be OK with Google notifying users results are
censored?

China can make arbitrary changes to their rules at any time and force Google
go along or go home. Google is free of this pressure by not participating but
the more revenue they have in China the tougher it will be to say no.

~~~
mavdi
Yeah this article's reasoning is some next level BS. Of course Google will
bend it's western norms and policies to whatever the Chinese demand. Even more
so after entering China, they wouldn't simply decide not to comply and pack
their bags writing off billions in investment.

~~~
pas
They already did so once, which is not something other tech companies are able
to say.

I don't have very high hopes of Google somehow breaking Chinese censorship,
but simply writing off their effort seems unfair.

~~~
ardy42
> but simply writing off their effort seems unfair.

Their efforts seem obviously futile, and open up the risk that the Chinese
government will use it's new leverage over them to get them to to bad things.
For instance, Yahoo once handed over the emails of two Chinese pro-democracy
journalists [1], resulting in them getting 10 year prison sentences in China.
Once Google is getting revenue from China, it will be a lot harder for them to
say no such demands, especially ones they can comply with in secret.

[1]
[https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3862513&page=1](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3862513&page=1)

------
torgian
Bullshit article. Apparently the author doesnt know what “authoritative
government “ means.

All the Chinese government would need to do is fine google, and pull the plug
on google. Simple as that. When it comes to China’s censorship laws, it’s very
hard to overcome them if damn near impossible.

And quite frankly, most Chinese citizens could care less. Baidu and other
services gives them what they need. Those who care get a VPN, and that
includes Chinese businesses.

Author has never stepped foot in china or talked to its people. Google doesn’t
stand a chance if they go against censorship laws, and they know it. They
don’t care.

~~~
blacksmith_tb
I don't know what "authoritative government" means either... was that supposed
to be "authoritarian"?

I am not sure I follow the argument, though - yes, it's true that the Beijing
could just pull the plug on Google Lite(tm), but there would be some
international PR damage. I doubt it would stop them, but it would at least
influence the decision.

But I do agree that the overall sense I get of Chinese citizens is not that
they are chafing at the level of control they live under, it's all bread and
circuses, cashless WeChat fun.

------
chubasco
I think it is ironic that Google et al like to point out when governments are
asking them to censor something, but make no mention of when they themselves
are censoring something.

"Governments are the real bad guys here. Trust us."

------
crazynick4
I'm surprised to see as liberal a paper as The Washington Post supporting
this. Or really any news source coming out of a democracy.

~~~
dgacmu
Really? There's a fundamental and very uncertain question here about isolation
vs partial engagement that plays out in all sorts of international relations.
The discussion above captures it well enough. I personally have absolutely no
idea what the best answer is, and I'd be surprised if most if the other
readers here do either.

For a. Example of the engagement question, see the Golden Arches theory (and
disagreement):
[https://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/wiki/IPE/Golden_Arches_Theo...](https://mediawiki.middlebury.edu/wiki/IPE/Golden_Arches_Theory_of_Conflict_Prevention)

