Google Committed to Chinese Business 175
Snowgen writes "Despite this week's earlier story that hinted Google may consider pulling out of China over the topic of censorship, Reuters is now quoting Sergey Brin as saying that 'Google Inc. is committed to doing business in China despite criticism the company has faced for abiding by Chinese government censorship restrictions.'" More from the article: "Brin told a small group of invited journalists: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to do something different. Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there ... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now'."
Typo in headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Typo in headline (Score:3, Interesting)
What they think will gain from being in China will get offset by the corruption that will infiltrate the company. Pretty soon, the Chinese will want Google's research to start occuring over th
Re:Typo in headline (Score:3, Insightful)
The same principle applies to WalMart. By getting access to WalMart you get access to the largest distribution system in the world. Initially, this is a huge windfall for your company. However, later on you see that you've giv
Re:Typo in headline (Score:4, Insightful)
Google has a legal obligation to behave in a manner dictated to it by the voting shareholders. While this is usually a directive to make money, it could be other things. It just so happens that Page and Brin have 66.2 percent of the voting power. [eweek.com] So they can actually do whatever they want to do. THEY are the final word on China or not, so you can point the finger directly at them.
Re:Typo in headline (Score:2)
Re:Typo in headline (Score:2)
Your statement, a quote from Milton Friedman, is not a law. While I will acknowledge it is a major school of economic thought concerning the roles and responsibilities of public companies, it has never been legislated directly as such.
Legislation concerning public companies generally (varies by state) focuses on the allowance of shareholders to vote on issues concerning the company as a whole, the proportionate owership of assets in a company b
Re:Typo in headline (Score:2)
When the majority of voting shareholders are actively managing the company, how can that rule apply? Google could lose money and as long as the majority of shareholders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, are ok with that what can anyone do?
The minority shareholders can't out-vote the majority.
The government officials are not going to step in just because a company is running out of money.
Thats Reality 101.
I'll take your 'fuck you' (Score:2)
Principles? What're those? (Score:5, Insightful)
He then added "I mean, what good are principles anyway? They don't make you any money. Keeping your word and following your beliefs, well, it's highly overrated.
Re:Principles? What're those? (Score:3)
I'll disagree. (Score:2)
I'll disagree. I don't see it as complicated at all.
Which do you value more?
#1. Money
#2. Your claimed morals and ethics?
That is based upon t
Re:I'll disagree. (Score:2)
Of course, that's the entire point of cooperation. The Chinese government needs something from Google. Google can play ball to varying degrees, or they can stonewall and become marginalized.
Are you expendable? That's possible. But i'll put it to you again (and again this requires some trust in Google), is it not better to know for yourself what China is doing? Again, if there's no way for th
I'll disagree, even more. (Score:2)
There is an old joke that illustrates how you are wrong on that.
Guy: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?
Woman: Yes.
Guy: Would you sleep with me for a dollar?
Woman: No! What kind of woman do you think I am?
Guy: We've already established that. Now we're negotiating price.
The moral of that story is
Re:Principles? What're those? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Principles? What're those? (Score:2)
The government removes people. Google removes content. Google is complying with the wishes of the government, thus lending them power, thus helping them remove people. The american consumer, by buying Chinese products, is helping pay Chinese taxes, thus helping the government kill people. But, the American p
Re:Principles? What're those? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you were in China would you rather have a censored google or no google at all? Not living in China you could probably say no google, but I'm sure if you didn't have it, you would take the opposite opinion
This stance is so tired. Google is doing no good in China. Google doesn't have the ability to change a thing in China. Good search results (subjective) do not feed starving peoples, unseat oppresive leaders, or aid in revolts and protests. Especially if these results are
Re:Principles? What're those? (Score:2)
Search results are subjective. Because you think Google is great doesn't mean jack. Becuase you would still use google's search if it became censored here in America doesn't mean jack. Your opinions are not fulcrums of logical arguments. Your only standing argument is boils down to "I like Google."
No, I wouldn't prefer a crippled anything to the real deal.
Yes, a censored search engine is worthless.
Re:Principles? What're those? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, a censored search engine is worthless.
So every search engine in existence is worthless? I disagree. The degree of censorship is certainly inversely proportional to the actual value to a person searching, but unless the censorship involves removing every single possible search result, it doesn't r
Re:Principles? What're those? (Score:2)
This is a valid point, and one that I'm not denying - but in this discussion it somewhat of a moot point.
The overall point of the GGP/GP was that a censored Google is better than no Google at all for China. I didn't really clarify my rebuttal, and looking back at my post it looks like I think any censored search engine is completely useless - a ridiculous stance t
Re:Principles? What're those? (Score:2)
As long as sites like the sourceforge are around, people will be able to communicate freely. Google is a busisness, they need to have project that make money, but to be honest if the chinese were so determined to end freedom of speech I'd be 100% behind google finding other ventures to make money at.
I have spent the last 12 years of my life belie
Re:Principles? What're those? (Score:2)
Might want to take a break from the bong for a few days, dude. Sites have to be accessed, so if someone else controls the access it doesn't matter how free & open the site is. There was an open relay notifier, but it's gone now, which kind of sums up the situation.
Re:Principles? What're those? (Score:2)
He then added "I mean, what good are principles anyway? They don't make you any money. Keeping your word and following your beliefs, well, it's highly overrated.
And somewhere in Redmond, WA, someone is cackling...
Continuation (Score:3, Funny)
The article goes on to say:
Brin said these words as a group of stockholders stood behind him holding a shotgun and several cattle prods
Re:Continuation (Score:3, Funny)
All while dancing, nubile imperial concubines and heavy sacks of pristine tea leaves and silk dangled seductively directly in front of the podium.
Google better should do so as U.S. one will bust (Score:3, Funny)
Google should do wise to stay in china, as the thing closest to internet as we know it will only exist in china after some 6-12 months, thanks to 'Telecommunications OPPORTUNITY' act.
What "opportunity" this is i wonder
Yea sure (Score:5, Insightful)
How does that old saying go? (Score:2, Funny)
Question for Brin (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Question for Brin (Score:3, Insightful)
Falling stock prices.
KFG
A non-evil out (Score:2)
I'm sure google have the resources and technical know-how to pull this off, and they have the market clout that they could actually get the application widely proliferated. That would fulfil the goal of developing google in China and at the same time actively work against the Chinese censorship policies.
If half the net users in China have an encrypting tool installed that bypasses the
Re:A non-evil out (Score:2)
They'd be blocked. And if they're blocked, most of the population won't be able to get to them without using some sort of circumvention tool anyways.
Of course they could develop it. But they don't have as much of a
Re:Question for Brin (Score:2)
That's a lame argument. Google is materially providing support to the oppresive regime in China because they operate there.
1) Their chinese subsidiary pays taxes to the chinese government.
2) The chinese government benefits directly from using google.
3) By censoring they are perpetuating the chinese government's propaganda by showing only it's world-view. No
Famous Last Words (Score:2, Funny)
China: It seems that in your anger, you killed her.
Brin: I... I couldn't have. She was alive. I felt her. Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!
Re:Famous Last Words (Score:2)
Why is everyone amazed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is everyone amazed? (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with this is that this isn't a "good" principle to live by, it is in fact evil and unethical, but since it seems to be the norm in this day and age, it's understandable to see why some would deem this practice as "ok".
Re:Why is everyone amazed? (Score:2)
Re:Why is everyone amazed? (Score:2)
Re:Why is everyone amazed? (Score:2)
Turning their back? (Score:2)
Don't hate (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't blame him for staying in China (Score:2, Interesting)
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Plain and Simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone Shames Google... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Everyone Shames Google... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which would you prefer, a censored Wikipedia or no Wikipedia? I'd take censored. Something is better than nothing.
Re:Everyone Shames Google... (Score:2)
Why do you say this?
Google is a company; is it wrong to deprive a group a people access to the services of a company?
Do you also think it is wrong if China kicked out Pfizer? Or Universal Studios? Or a noodle-making Japanese company?
Why do the people of China NEED the services of Google?
Re:Everyone Shames Google... (Score:2)
Heh heh heh.
Well, Google deserves it (Score:2)
It's been a successful campaign too. Slashdotters have bought in to it, as has the media at large, making Google out to be a good, idealistic company that's more concerned with doing right than ma
Re:Everyone Shames Google... (Score:2)
As for the liberal Northern Californians... that's not true. It is from San Fran and down, and maybe in Arcata/Eureka, but the rest of Norcal is actually more conservative. T
It is not Googles responsibility to change China (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Any business that directly portrays themselves as the company that can make money without doing evil [google.com] should be expected to do just that.
They have insinuated, in their own right, a 'holier-than-thou' attitude themselves, now their ignorance of doing the right thing in China is contradicting and insulting.
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
(b) there's easy cases to be made that some google is better than none, and I've seen many of those cases made by actual people in China, not self-righteous internet nerds.
(c) Google cannot be the Only Moral Company. Expecting them to be so is tantamount to expecting them to commit corporate suicide over a matter they are incapable of changing.
In short, grow up and learn to see the
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
(b) well.. lets hear some cases then! you're obviously the expert, or maybe you just play one on t.v.
(c) incapable of chaning? well for starters they could follow their original 'mantra' and not deal with communist censorship.. or they could just pull out now. they choose neither.
maybe you don't understand the real dangers of communists and their socio-political censorship
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
(b) read the rest of the thread, there's several. The big one is 'which does more good: no google in china or some google in china? Is it better to refuse to be part of a corrupt system and try to act for change, or to simply refuse to acknowledge that the system exists?'
(c) if you honestly think that Google refusing to work with the Chinese will have any impact at all, you're either wildl
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
As far as staying out of China commercially, the cat's out of the bag, and was so before google was even a corporate entity. Google can be pragmatic about it, or they can be martyrs. I'll let you figure out which I think is better for the Chinese people, which is really who we're concerned with in the long run, right?
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Well, if their corporate mottos wasn't some "Holier-Than-Thou" crap I'd follow you on this.
As for the rest, sure it's important to "clean your own backyard" before being a critic of your neighbor but if everyone had the "the rest of the world is doing it" attitude nothing would change. People need to do what is right in their own eyes but you can't dismiss
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Yeah, that's the way to think of it... I love defeatists. Google comes out gang busters with all this idealogy about the freedom of information but HELPING China censor their population is "just tilting at windmills"? Please.
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
What are the chances that the company that is HELPING China censor their peasants from the internet is going to do that? Call me naive but there is something that goes deeper than profit. If you don't feel that that's true and worth working towards I'm afraid we have little to discuss.
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Again, I'd love to hear any realistic scenarios where Google staying away he
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Say you're a Chinese programmer living in Shanghai, and your task for the day is to figure out how to write an anonymous closure in Javascript. Is being able to access google.com helpful or no?
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
I am glad that murdering citizens over voicing disagreement with their government is such a complex issue for you. Sadly, to my so simple brain it sounds like an unjustified move by the cowardly. Let's just hope someday we will not have to live up to these high standards here too.
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Only if they didn't state that they were going to hold themselves to a "holier-than-thou" philosophy, rather than waiting for someone else to ask them to... It would have been different if they never said "Don't be Evil", and happily did the greed thing like many other profit-chasing businesses, unencumbered by high morals. But, they said it, they made t
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Re:It is not Googles responsibility to change Chin (Score:2)
Just lost a lot of respect for Google (Score:2)
Then Google's grey area in its dealings with China... then their foreshadowing of some sort of 'decision' on the matter, and now a statement stating
Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too. (Score:5, Insightful)
First, as has been rightly pointed out in previous debates on this subject, Google is a publicly-traded American corporation. This means it is under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders. Pulling out of the world's largest market, even on a matter of principle, is a poor business judgment decision that would likely result in Google getting sued by the stockholders down the line. If there is "evil" here, U.S. corporate law is as much to blame as anyone.
Second, the Chinese government does not care about the First Amendment. Laudable though it might seem to take a stand and protest Chinese censorship by refusing their business, the Chinese brass would likely respond with the Mandarin equivalent of "Don't let the door hit you on the way out!" The censorship would continue as before, with only Yahoo and MS raking in huge profits for Chinese search traffic (Yahoo having been notably more cooperative with the People's Republic in quashing dissenting voices than Google ever was).
If Google is really concerned about the democratic privileges of the Chinese people (which incidentally, they don't enjoy--however much Americans may find censorship to be reprehensible, China is a different country, and free speech hasn't been established there), sticking around is one of the best things they could do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Google has always been available in China--as Google.com. Google.cn just makes it more language- and user-friendly for the Chinese consumer. Additionally, every time the Chinese engine returns censored results, isn't there a note to the effect that the document has been redacted? This would seem, in my mind, to contribute to a heightened public awareness in China as to just how pervasive the censorship regime is. This will in turn spawn more, not less, dissent, tending more towards democratic reform in the long term.
What do the people of China really gain if Google shuts down? Even redacted information, if freely available, is far better than none if we want to motivate reform. If Google pulled out, it would lose business, subject itself to legal liability, and change nothing in China in the long term. By staying, it allows the Chinese one more tool (however controlled) for obtaining and disseminating information. No barrier is as porous as one that tries to limit the flow of information; the Great Firewall can't last forever. Maybe Google can help pull it down--but not if they leave.
Re:Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too. (Score:2)
You are correct. Although the creation of google.cn was not only for language barrier breaking purposes. Thanks to the great firewall of China, google.com was often incredebly slow or inaccesible most of the time. Plus it was still censored, but in ways google couldn't control or even determine.
Re:Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too. (Score:2)
No. Google is obligated by law to behave in a manner dictated to it by its voting shareholders. While this most often is "make money" it doesn't have to be so. Since Sergey and Larry own 66.2% of the voting stock, they can do whatever they feel like, without b
No, it's a bad thing (Score:2)
Not so. It is obliged to act in the interest of its shareholders, but 1) the law leave a lot of wiggle room when interpreting the common interest of the shareholders and 2) I'm sure there are shareholders that think 'do no evil' is a standard that should be upheld.
> with only Yahoo and MS raking in huge profits for Chinese sea
Re:Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too. (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that they are right to deal with China. However, I am also happy that they are getting some hell for it, as the debate is valuable.
Re:Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too. (Score:4, Insightful)
And on the other side, Google seems to be doing a very good job in getting people outside China to talk about Chinese censorship and the like. Whether you agree or disagree with Google's actions, they're definitely raising awareness of who they're dealing with.
Odds are You are worse then google. (Score:4, Insightful)
You think you're so noble trying to flame google over this. while you whisle dixie chicks songs and shop in wallmart.
"I really hoped they would be a good company"... so that somehow I could justify my missdeeds by saying hey I bought stock in google.
Just what the hell have you done to help the general populance of china today?
Anything? Ever? no? then shut the hell up.
Re:Odds are You are worse then google. (Score:2)
Re:Odds are You are worse then google. (Score:2)
"the US also imported more goods from China, leading to an increased deficit of $17bn with that country alone."
I love it (Score:2)
Summary: HELLO, Google is not the one censoring the chinese people, CHINA is the one censoring them
Give them a break... (Score:2)
Who can blame them for this decision? sheesh
Or as a friend said "They're still abiding by the core company philosophy if by 'good' you mean a huge pile of money.. and 'evil' being a smaller pile of money. They are doing no evil"
The ability to simply redefine for yourself what words mean to make youself into an angel, Bill Clinton would be proud
Which Option would you go with? (Score:2)
The "Do No Evil" theme is too susceptible to... (Score:2, Insightful)
...people passing judgement about every action Google makes. Obeying laws of the countries you are doing business in can certainly be defended as an honorable way to live the mantra "Do No Evil".
It is not the responsibility of Google to be a vehicle for political influence.
I think what Google is trying to accomplish with this theme is to state that they want to compete fairly (albeit, agressively and relentlessly) in any markets they choose to compete in. And, that they want to offer a product to custom
Do no evil, unless it makes money. (Score:2)
"The network is the computer, or possibly thats the PC" - SUN
"Invent or Copy" -HP
"Innovating for a Safer World, Fly Concorde" - BAE
"Good Food. Good Life. Kill Babies." - Nestle
"Beyond Petroleum" - BP
(unmodified, i just want to see it again because it's so hilarious)
Yahoo is less evil than Google (Score:3, Funny)
Money corrupts. (Score:2)
No Power, No No-Evil (Score:2)
In other words, because it has all not money, it can talk about ethics. So why would it be surprising when Google decides to keep the business in China?
A company does not succeed because it's good. A company succeeds because it makes money.
Face it human. A company is a company. All of them make money.
If one day Google pulls out of China, the reason would still be money.
Just live with that
Re:Sergey Brin is a hypocrite, plain and simple (Score:2)
Re:Sergey Brin is a hypocrite, plain and simple (Score:2)
Like being a bad speller.
Or a spelling nazi.
Re:Sergey Brin is a hypocrite, plain and simple (Score:2)
Re:Bad dog (Score:3, Insightful)
Google's motto is "Do no evil".
Corporations do evil things.
Hence, Google becoming a RAC (tm) means that Google is being evil.
Which means Google is lying in its very motto.
Re:Bad dog (Score:2)
Re:Bad dog (Score:2)
Re:Bad dog (Score:2)
Trying to educate this crowd on the fact that they are the product is difficult at best and hellish at worst. Let's not get into trying to enlighten people that Google is quickly becoming a monopoly. You immediately get hit with at least 3 responses of "You can't have a monopoly on search" and one troll. Never mind that the monopoly is on online advertising - not search.