As the wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Wei_Zexi makes clear, those medical adverts were not fake. They were certainly deadly. They were also run by the Second Hospital of the Beijing Armed Police Corps. A state owned hospital. On what basis would google refuse to run that ad? Barring them from advertising seems like a great way to get a midnight knock at your door from the Beijing Armed Police Corp. And it's not like an algorithm will easily tell when medical claims are is truthful.
Would the auction algorithm produced a different ad result? Google's pay per click model maximizes revenue per ad shown, not human welfare; presumably the hospital willing to pay to get to the top of the searches is willing to go the extra mile to improve click thru rates.
Would marking it more clearly as an ad have made a difference? Google is already walking down that slippery slope; today Google places ads directly in line with search results. If Baidu is able to legally get away without even marking ads, it seems like Google is an A/B test away from a very profitable locale specific change to the UI.
The Cancer Center and other departments of the Second Hospital of the Armed Police Beijing Corps were actually outsourced to the operation of the Putian network, the latter has a long history of false advertising of various ineffective medical treatments.
Basically, the general public believes Baidu was the largest supporter of the Putian network, and Putian hospitals may have contributed 12 billion RMB (1.8 billion US$) of the total of 26 billion RMB (4 billion US$) in ad revenues reported by Baidu that year.
I don't understand is the false equivalency between baidu's advertising and PRC's notorious human rights violations.
This post doesn't address any of the concerns brought up by the original letter they decry?
Weak arguments are covered up with emotional rhetoric about deaths and such.
Please do not respond to my comment about “what about US Federal agencies in bed with the FANG”. Before we discuss, China is not even on the same ballgame. It’s not the same sport. It’s like going to another planet where your entire identity is linked to your cellphone number. I visit China multiple times a year and without WeChat, I can’t do anything. On HN, I often see comparisons to the US and the west but it’s just shifting the discussion somewhere else. US has democracy, open and fair justice system and I can sue the government, I have Miranda rights, freedom of speech and the whole American dream enchilada. It’s still alive despite of the shit president and it is here to stay. Negativity against the US is rampant here.
Just because you can't stop something, doesn't mean you should actively support it.
It's awfully easy to stand on principle when it's the other guy who sacrifices for it.
Is the other guy me? or are the other guys those killed by the PRC?
You would sacrifice them to search Google, I would sacrifice your Google searches for them. We do not have to agree.
That's not the point. People already DID get killed, and ARE getting killed. Millions and millions of them. Totalitarianism is the fact on the table. That's not just "another market", and the benefit to China gained by Western complicity in it, is nothing compared to the damage we are doing to ourselves.
I doubt you understand how important this is and how deep it runs. We're not going to throw millenia of evolution of thought, and ultimately thought and human agency itself away, just to make not resisting more comfortable for "the large chunk of non-dissidents" or Silicon Valley or whoever may come.
> The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough circuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation. In the past, free-thinkers and revolutionaries were often the products of the most piously orthodox education. This is not surprising. The methods employed by orthodox educators were and still are extremely inefficient. Under a scientific dictator education will really work -- with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.
> Meanwhile there is still some freedom left in the world. Many young people, it is true, do not seem to value freedom. But some of us still believe that, without freedom, human beings cannot become fully human and that freedom is therefore supremely valuable. Perhaps the forces that now menace freedom are too strong to be resisted for very long. It is still our duty to do whatever we can to resist them.
-- Aldous Huxley, "Brave New World Revisited" (1958)
Google employees post letter saying DragonFly enables human rights violations.
OP posts letter saying DragonFly creates an alternative to baidu's fraudulent and dangerous advertising, and that this is a reasonable response to the letter.
It sounds like the op thinks that Baidu's advertising and human rights violations are either related, or somehow interact.
This is not the concern in the signed letter. It is also not related to any of the core concerns from commenters here, as far as I can tell.
Yet somehow, many people are feeding the idea that the primary question is a cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of a person living in China. Of course, access to a pseudo-Google in China would be better for people there. It would be another option, and probably a tad closer to uncensored.
The concerns are simply not about that.
This is about setting a precedent of a company in a liberal democracy bending to the wishes of the government of a non-liberal-democracy.
The concern is that this compromise is not only something that happens in China, but also something that happens next in UK and then in Germany, and then in the US.
The concern is that any society with an "unfiltered" Google becomes a thing of the past. The concern is that the largest organization in the world controlling access to information begins "partnering" with governments and we step into an accelerated path towards disinformation.
(disclaimer: ex-googler. In words Google itself likes to use, because long-tail search matters. Also I should mention I now default to DuckDuckGo, on privacy grounds, but it's not a step up just "surprisingly not bad", I frequently repeat a search in Google and get more results)
(This is only the most infamous case from the past 10 years)
So if the post author's only argument for DragonFly is that China needs Google because China needs a search engine that doesn't promote fake meds, it's a false premise.
EDIT: Changed 5->10 years since the case in question was from 2009-2011. Also, as another comment points out, a Chinese state medical clinic was responsible for the Baidu fake medicine incident. It's highly unlikely that Google would turn down a government agency from its ad buying. So again, not seeing a huge difference between Baidu and Dragonfly, other than the quality of their results (but not their ethics).
DragonFly will probably be the largest step to democratizing information that has ever happened for the Chinese people. It's a huge step forward. It won't change the fact that the Chinese government already does censor information, and that it does spy on its people. This isn't new. DragonFly will just provides Chinese citizens so much more information that we can't get otherwise without resorting to VPNs.
For the people in China who aren't dissidents (a large chunk of the 1.4 billion, or 4x the population of the US), this will be an entirely positive change that could save millions of lives.
Please, please launch DragonFly.
You might want to talk to some Hong Kong people, or even people from Taiwan, if they are still considered "Chinese" for this matter.
A real concern for HK/Taiwan people is, what if CCP demands Google to turn over HK/Taiwan user's data? Do you think Google can push back by saying "nah we don't think HK/Taiwan is part of China"?
Also as a Chinese myself, I'm in the "meh" camp on Dragonfly. Baidu does have its own problems, but for Chinese people Bing has always been there. How much difference does it make? For Google, if launching Dragonfly would damage the "Google" brand's image and reputation, is Dragonfly going to bring enough benefit to offset such damage?
A censored search engine will save millions of lives? Reads like propaganda to me.
> DragonFly will probably be the largest step to democratizing information
Democratized information... with Chinese characteristics.
What in the world does censorship have to do with this? Information will strictly be more available by having Google in China, than not having Google in China. Google is orders of magnitude better than Baidu, which makes not even a superficial attempt at hiding that it censors and reranks information. DragonFly will simply not allow you to search censored phrases, rather than selectively remove results.
As to why I think it’ll save lives. Let me give you an example. I once tried to search for the US consulate in China on Baidu. The phrase for that is “美国领事馆”. Try it on Baidu. When I last searched it, the website for the consulate was on the 3rd or 4th page, the address was nowhere on Baidu, and the rest of the results were travel agencies trying to make a profit.
Now think about searching for “suicide” or “depression”. Still think it won’t save lives?
Not everything has to be about censorship and human rights with China. Partial information can still save lives.
> Democratized information... with Chinese characterisitics.
Yes, what’s your point? America was built on democracy with a nice twist of slavery.
I'm not in China but the Baidu show the related information (ustraveldocs.com) on the first result. To search "suicide", you've got the telephone for help.
I don't know why you selected “美国领事馆” while similar issues happened in China. Google's DragonFly will block it too. If you search "香港政府", you get the best on the first result.
> and the rest of the results were travel agencies trying to make a profit.
It's smarter than Google! People in China are trying to escape at the time. Baidu shows a more accurate result base on the trend. It works like the Yahoo or newspaper's homepage.
Why should Google join China, give away its IP one way or another, let CCP exerts its force on more Western Companies, and further strengthen its power in China and the world?
Does anyone has the slightly idea what the hell is going on inside CCP's mind? I wish the WTO had a new terms for anyone joining, the nation must allow democratic election after joining WTO. There is no such thing as free market in a one party system.
You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.
Why would a Chinese citizen who was anti-dragonfly out themselves?
They're just normal people living normal lives. They have 2 legs and 2 arms, eat ice cream, complain about traffic and politics in person and online the same you and I do. Google is a nice to have but at the end of the day, not that important.
People are pretty open about what they want. Google is something many people (who know about it) want.
FWIW, yes, I could be propaganda. But if I were, I’d be doing something much more useful with my time than browsing hackernews and trying to argue against opinionated software engineers who don’t want to be convinced otherwise.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what happened recently to bookstore owners in Hong Kong. Or people who "stir up trouble" by criticizing the government on WeChat.
Funny that you mention underground prisons, because they are a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_jails
you are naive if you think crippled Google would change anything, lived in China plenty years to know better, majority would be ambivalent and it would be used only by people who wanna look cool
I have no illusions about Google creating social change. That's not the point. Google will make it much easier than Bing to find information you need. It is more convenient. It could save lives in the right situations. That's enough of a sell for me.
If you believe there is any hope for the Chinese people, foreign entities should focus on aiding the regime and the political status quo as little as possible, hypothetical ad business improvements or not.
2. Almost every single Chinese citizen I've spoken to is for this project. I find it a bit ironic that all the opposition is from Westerners who love to feel outraged in their place and assume they know what's best for others. Why not let them decide what they want for their country, rather than shoving your ideals on them? You're not the one who has to live without dozens of Google services that only have shitty alternatives, they are.
I don't think you understand what this debate is about. This isn't about what Chinese citizens want. This is the rest of the developed world standing up and saying they don't want to be involved in aiding an oppressive regime. China doesn't get to hold the wellbeing of the citizens it's oppressing as a bargaining chip here.
If chinese citizens are worse off for it, they should be looking to make their government more like the west rather than making baseless pleas for the west to become more like China. Ultimately this is the heart of the debate. Is China's market size big enough to force western tech to bow down to unethical practices for some sweet $, or is the western tech industry big enough to send a loud and clear message that the Chinese regime is not acceptable to the developed world.
By the rest of the developed world you mean a small and loud subset of Google employees?
This assumes most of their citizens have all the information about the implications, which is very unlikely, for the very reason everyone is wary of Google re-entering China.
Obviously. The people who aren't would be crazy to confide in you.
> Why not let them decide what they want for their country
So you would have been okay with Hitler "just" murdering Jews, not starting a war, as long as most Germans would have been for it? How come we think of it as Jews and others having been murdered, instead of Germans just doing something "to themselves"? Or hey, even during the war, wasn't that just Europeans doing something? Why not simply go all the way, to carbon-based life forms, or simply declaring everything the same, because "it's all just physics and chemistry"?
And whose country was Germany during that time, would you say -- that of the Nazis and their supporters, or the Germans in exile and in resistance, the ones in graves?
Just calling something "ideals" (because you don't dare to acknowledge the principles, while you reap their fruits no less) and "outrage", that's simply nothing but rich, considering your being "outraged" over the ideal of non-intervention, of "not judging" or "having to live without Google services" (just wow).
> You're not the one who has to live without dozens of Google services that only have shitty alternatives, they are.
So you do understand the logic, you simply only apply it to petty things, not murder.
"Murder is not government". Now there's a thought. By the same token, looking away is not being a citizen.
Neither you, nor the people you have spoken to, got to taste the wrong end of the gun of totalitarianism. If you think only of yourself, nobody should think of you.
Its not even big news on the media anymore, at this point the fighting is just a free-for-all.
Edit: Do you honestly think that once the Chinese government has some leverage over Google (because they now make a portion of their revenue from the Chinese market) they wouldn't use that to get additional concessions?
As an example, Chinese citizens can still access Google if they can connect through an outside VPN. Google may be able to identify such users through cookies, reCaptcha or another Google tracking technology. What if China asked Google to censor results for Chinese users using VPNs too?
The only information that the Chinese government would have access to from Google is info they already have from Baidu.
If it's not worse than the status quo, then it's not a negative impact of bringing Dragonfly to China.
Maybe people unaware of DragonFly will try riskier search phrases on Google than on Baidu.
And the problem gets especially bad if they find whatever they were looking for. As in this case the state has evidence on consuming "politically dangerous" material. (Not that they can't fake it otherwise.)
By abdicating that responsibility to an actor like Baidu, who is much more aligned with the Chinese government, they make the problem worse. By agreeing to their demands, and then doing the shittiest job possible of complying, they actually have a lot more power and influence.
> Edit: Do you honestly think that once the Chinese government has some leverage over Google (because they now make a portion of their revenue from the Chinese market) they wouldn't use that to get additional concessions?
Yes, but that's a two way street. Chinese citizens will come to rely on Google search, and will be unhappy when its taken away. So both sides become enmeshed.
This is an argument akin to "I'm joining the system so I can change it from the inside".
This can work, but you need leverage. What leverage would Google have over the Chinese government in this case? Say what you will about the current Chinese leadership, but they're not stupid and they know what Google is capable of. If they think Google is dragging they're feet why wouldn't they just block Google again?
Why would they? They're out to make money and they'll make much less money by making enemies with the CCP.
We can also look at history: American companies have no problem doing business with authoritarian and repressive regimes. Sometimes they even prop them up.
And how can companies establish a major presence in China unless they are aligned with the Chinese government?
If a lot of companies decided to refuse to follow China's oppressive methods (and thus making life slightly worse for some of the people of china) it might slightly push the residents of china towards revolting and gaining more freedom.
This is all theoretical of course, I doubt that anything like that could happen in real life.
Compared to that, continuing to enjoy the greatest rise in living standards in human history doesn't look half bad.
There's always a human cost to revolutions. That doesn't justify supporting and perpetuating one of the biggest threats to freedom in the entire world.
This is extremely poor reasoning. An overall "bad" thing does not become "good" or justified because it has improved conditions in some way. By the very same token, slavery has both good sides and bad sides, and by your dismissive style, we ought not to consider the bad sides - the slaves should continue to enjoy the greatest rise in living standards (having food and shelter provided by the master) and the slave owners should continue to enjoy the greatest rise in profits in human history - isn't it clear that everyone wins?
What is even more ironic is that for China, a state which claims to be Communist, is being supported by your argument which was specifically repudiated by Marx in criticizing Proudhon for exactly the view you are expounding!
>The good side and the bad side, the advantages and drawbacks, taken together form for M. Proudhon the contradiction in every economic category. The problem to be solved: to keep the good side, while eliminating the bad. Slavery is an economic category like any other. Thus it also has its two sides. Let us leave alone the bad side and talk about the good side of slavery. Needless to say, we are dealing only with direct slavery, with Negro slavery in Surinam, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America.
>Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe North America off the map of the world, and you will have anarchy – the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.
>What would M. Proudhon do to save slavery? He would formulate the problem thus: preserve the good side of this economic category, eliminate the bad.
I will also note that your immediate dismissal of revolution is historically shaky at best, as great advances in history and freedom were gained from revolution - of both country (France, America, many wars of independence, Germany) and economy (the bourgeois revolution in means of production). Just remember this:
>If money, according to Augier, “comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,” capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.
It's pretty clear that the question is whether a thing is good on balance. We all agree slavery is bad on balance. China, on the other hand, who has authoritarian policies, but has simultaneously lifted billions of people out of extreme poverty, is much more mixed.
In any case this reasoning is flawed -- the correct analogy to "China has authoritarian policies but pulled billions of people out of poverty" would be "the United States had slavery but populated a continent while creating wealth for millions of people". So the story of slavery is "much more mixed".
Sure, call it what you want. I'm no fan of the Chinese government.
> In any case this reasoning is flawed -- the correct analogy to "China has authoritarian policies but pulled billions of people out of poverty" would be "the United States had slavery but populated a continent while creating wealth for millions of people". So the story of slavery is "much more mixed".
So, should the cotton gin makers of their day not have sold cotton gins to the plantation owners? What good would that have done?
Don't do that.
However it's hard to assess the long term effect of this on Google and other Google users. That's the real question.
Okay Google builds DragonSpy. Okay, please make it work for Vietnam too says Vietnam, then me too says Putin, Venezuela, Iran, Turkey and so on.
As long as dictators are forced to block it wholesale, people have a signal. (Even if it is propagandized and spin as a good thing, let's say for economic protectionism.) When dictators can fish for their enemies, people have a problem.
I applaud this truthfully, it also gave me an alternative view about ( why) entering the market and what some Chinese think.
Some people would argue that Chinese peolple dying is not our problem, and we should stick to our “principles” to force Chinese government to change. Others think that something is better than nothing; even limited information can help people there.
Sadly, this disagreement leads to the worst outcome: Chinese people are deprived from even limited information while there is insufficient pressure to force the government to change course.
Yahoo Search is powered by Bing. If you looking at Hong Kong & Taiwan data. It still a quite amount of people using them. It's enough for them for their daily lives. Why not in China?
The tech person who using VPN in China. Have you ever tried to advice 551,615,600 peoples in China to use cn.bing.com?
You already have an option like DuckDuckGo that you suggested in the article.
For most people in China, Google is a luxury brand more than useful.
The remaining 250,384,400 peoples. Your first step isn't fighting for DragonFly in China but flight for Hong Kong & Taiwanese Celebrities can tell you where they from without the word "China" in the TV show.
But as China is becoming economically more powerful and tightening up it's control at the same time. Deng Xiaoping was no means liberal, but he made changes into right direction. Xi is walking even these small moves backwards.
In the end China will have their own internet and it will be heavily censored. It's up to Chinese let Google in as Google. Not to ask Chinese version of Google.
I can understand it, but it is shortsighted!! The main problem is not Google back to China, it's China blocks Google.
So, Google must drop the DragonFly project!
Then, people start to write articles in order to show their disagreements. For example, there is one: https://github.com/CT-ABT/Also-as-a-mainland-Chinese-why-do-.... The only problem is that it does not have an English translation.
Currently, Google's launch of Dragonfly creates an interesting disagreement in public opinion. In the U.S, the opinion in the "technosphere" is overtly negative, due to its implication of supporting censorship and oppression of the general public.
But in China, the public opinion from the "technosphere" is completely the opposite. The dominate search engine, Baidu's reputation has became notorious after the death of Wei Zexi, the 21-year-old cancer patient, after finding misleading treatment information on search engine Baidu. Citizens on the social media became aware of the existence of Putian Medical Group, a special interest group in the profit-driven healthcare market for its questionable medical treatment. Baidu was believed to be the largest supporter of the multi-billion-dollar industry, they may have contributed 12 billion RMB (1.8 billion US$) to Baidu's ad revenues. (See this article for the background: https://www.whatsonweibo.com/behind-baidu-scandal-baidu-puti...)
But it's not the only scandal. Baidu is known for its predatory and invasive advertisements, including consumer support fraud, visa fraud, medical fraud. Most of the time, entering any common keyword, people are confident to say that the first three results of the search list are the ads, and highly likely to be frauds. The daily victims of these ads is likely to be hundreds, if not thousands. Baidu is doing little, if not actively supporting the false advertising.
The public opinions of the IT workers in China, in my own words, is basically: if Google is a criminal, then Baidu is a maddog. The politics is authoritative, changing it is out-of-question. Then at least you can replace a wild maddog with an ordinary megacorp, which at least has a well-defined bottomline and more or less under the public supervision of the citizens.
I don't know what to say. On one hand, censorship and oppression surely causes long-term damage, but on the other hand, the damage of victims by these frauds is also a large number. Even if I take an utilitarianist approach, then what is valued greater?
u(free from censorship and oppression) x Google's contribution?
u(free from ubiquitous frauds from Baidu)?
> replace a wild maddog with an ordinary megacorp, which at least has a well-defined bottomline and more or less under the public supervision of the citizens
requires petitioning Google, not Baidu or the CCP... because that is probably easier than forming a consumer group that petitions the government to enact laws against the predatory ads Baidu has, and which they hope Google will not have (it's not like Google didn't attempt some shady shit with making sponsored results look nearly like normal results before). That's just "out of the question"
And predictably so. Because to organize like that, for something the people wanted for themselves, without being told they should want it? Yeah, right. After decades of killing dissidents en masse, the remainder of what people still are able to even consider has shrunken considerably.
Speaking of predatory and invasive:
The CCP is already treating other people in free countries like they're treating their "own" people. Yes, and Western companies play along, and I don't blame China for that at all -- but it also shows how the CCP is ticking, for those that need examples.
Totalitarianism is not just censorship and oppression. That's like saying war is hitting people and loading things on trucks. The "total" in its name means something, after all, it's not a self-given label.
> We don't know a perfected totalitarian power structure, because it would require the control of the whole planet.
-- Hannah Arendt
China never opened up to the West in any meaningful way. I mean, if a murderer invites you to dinner, with the implicit understanding that you're not to talk about the murders -- that's using someone as fig leaf, that's rubbing it in, not opening up. Meanwhile, the guy asks questions, and makes sure to tell everybody you were over to dinner. China is opening the West up to it.
I'm not saying the West is just great and perfect, with the wars of aggression and whatnot. But I'm vocal about that as well, and just because your arm is burning, why would you set your leg on fire, too?
If anything, the opposite would make sense. Because our governments are so corrupt, because we have this push for mass surveillance and militarization, we cannot afford to get in bed even more deeply with a totalitarian regime.
> Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose. If you can take this course, and in so far as you take it, you will bless this country. In so far as you depart from this course, you become dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners.
-- John J. Chapman
I want to be able to at least say I might have been deserving to live in a better world, even if I couldn't do enough to make this one that world. I want to remain in the company of thinkers and humans. Nothing more, nothing less. If humanity turns the world into an eternal torture chamber, I do not want to be guilty of having belittled or supported that. And if people think that's hyperbole, I certainly don't want to be guilty of it just so people wouldn't roll their eyes at me. I'm responsible for what I see and know, not for what others see and know. I compare what I have against the loss I see, not the loss others don't see because they were raised without it in the first place.
Even the idea of weighing normalization of and cooperation with totalitarianism against "online frauds" is, well, we live in completely different worlds.
> Even if I take an utilitarianist approach
The "even" implies that even then, it would come up the same, but your "formula" seems to show the opposite, that Google's contribution is "likely small", while fraud is "a lot". Like, I guess that is counted in units, eg. one murder vs. one fake viagra pill, so of course 5 murders are not easy to weigh against 50000 people defrauded with fake viagra pills... am I getting this correctly?
Since "surely causes long-term damage" also struck me as rather cold, while kinda giving lip service to not being cold, it occured to me that reading it as "cold", the "even" makes sense. Reading it as a cold description of something that is NOT meant to be belittled, the "even" does not.
But even this argument is only possible on the backdrop of Chinese citizens fixing their own search engines, even though they ALL seem to hate it and should have a lot of power, being "out of the question".
Serious question, but shouldn't grievances like this be taken up with the elected/appointed officials?
In fact most of the censorship is not enforced by written regulation, but are conducted by the website / company / media themselves for the fear of being shutdown overnight. Therefore companies differ from one another a little, and people hope in the worst form Google is still better than what's already out there.
next time, try ask for it humbly at least.
I think it's a real concern that Github might start censoring because China is able to exert pressure on Microsoft, just look at bing.
Moreover, the Tiananmen massacre happened 30 yrs ago and somewhat fresh on the memories of my parents cos they were almost part of it and in Beijing at the time.
And anyone sending helper
Similar to 6m Jews are gased or how many million is jailed for re-education to be killed mentally. Ok they are Jews, they are catholics, they are Muslims, they are ... we are all Hans one day and you will have to be as well.
Or using technology to monitor and control 1/5 humanity down to each and every movement. We can laugh that their AI is no good to do photo and id wrongly. We can improve I supposed.
This they-will-improve approach still do not get it. It is the soon to be no 1 economy in the world. You will be changed. The Beijing consensus will rule. You are just helping them not you them la.
is the implication that somehow Google would know more about the fraudsters than Baidu does?