It doesn't surprise me that google are doing this, in the same way that microsoft said, "if people are going to pirate software, we want it to be our software", google will want it to be their censored results that people see, and not a competitors. China aren't exactly going to budge on censorship, the US however, has laws that go above the power of the current government, and from what I can understand, google is using those to try and stop the government from taking their data.
China would just block all access to google if they didnt cooperate. And considering how many millions (billions?) of people live there that is a *lot* of money google will make from adsence!
Yea, but that is only less than 10% of the population that has access to the internet, imagine 50%! Even with 10% that is still a boost to Google, providing the Chinese know what Google is in the first place. But I have to say the Chinese government can be such w*****s, it's funny that recently they said on tv China wants to move into a democracy... Can't see that happening if they are denying the Chinese internet access to the west. Anyone going to the Olympics in 2008 will be complaining of lack of internet access!
Small steps, Chocolate dude. Russia introduced Democracy™ in full, no-holds-barred force under Jeltsin, and look at the mess that caused... Democracy is a culture that people, businesses, economies, goverments have to adjust to gradually. Too quick a change causes chaos. In any case, in a WIRED interview the founders of Google justified their choice as it being better to offer the Chinese people some access to information about what is going on in the rest of the world, than none whatsoever on a matter of principle. Search blocks are easily circumvented. To live in an internet black hole is not.
¹On the third day God made Dubya and he was evil. Then, God made Google and it was good. ²In the end Google and Communism will save the poor brown people of the world from the wrath of Dubya. It will be a tough battle but Dubya will be defeated. - Geek 1:1-2
I know what happened with Russia, but they were a much more of a communist state than China is, even the price ans supply of bread was determined by the government, in China it is set by the economy. If China wants to get into democracy, they need to open access to the internet, the internet is full of information, whether true or false, but it educates people and imo in freeing up the web the Chinese can get a feel of democracy and prepare for it. The main reason is probably to do with the fact the Chinese Govt is paranoid, they definatly don't want to be releasing western opinions on the Tiananmen Square protest of 1989 and other state secrets. But lets hope China does gain more freedom, they already give the world a lot of benefit from making about 50% of the things we own!
³And lo, a prophet came from the West and he cried: "Be not deceived, for it is noble and good to sell weapons to the oppressors of nations to feed the Golden Calf, and then to turn face and lambast them; to plunge their nations into the darkness of war to feed the Golden Calf, and claim this brings freedom to the people who died by the weapons you sold." 4"But it is evil to try and bring knowledge to an oppressed people, even if this is by compromise. For that is deceitful and weak, and not standing firm by your principles." 5And verily, the prophet talketh crap and no sense came from his ranting orifice. Back to serious discussion now?
It is inevitable. Where business takes root, capitalism follows --and capitalism needs democracy. There are many reasons why this gradual erosion of the Communist bastion will work better than a full-on confrontation.
Thats an intresting comment to make, but one I imagine you havn't just thrown out in the open without thinking about. For what reason would you say thats the case though? I'm curious, while it kinda feels like capitalism and democracy go hand in hand, I can't think of any real reasons why a kind of dictatorship couldn't preside over a capitolist society.
Think about it. Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are overwhelmingly privately owned and operated for profit, with privately determined investment of capital, and where production, distribution, and the prices of goods, services, and labor are affected by the forces of supply and demand in a largely free market (thank you, Wikipedia ). We know this to be the very anathema of Communism, which aspires to a classless, stateless social organization based upon common ownership of the means of production. Everything you produce goes in the communal pool, and you take out what you need. There is no private ownership of means of production or of the product, hence no personal profit or incentive for private investment, and no free market. Dictatorship, in contemporary usage, refers to absolute rule by a leadership (usually one dictator) unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state. The existence of dictatorships relies solely upon the power which they are capable of exerting over their citizens. The dictatorship controls everything; hence there is no real private ownership of production, and no (safe) private investment for personal profit (unless you are very tight buddies with the dictator or his henchmen), and no real free market. It is a bit like Communism, except that the pool isn't communal. Labourers toil for a pitiful wages to contribute to the pool, but the only one who gets to dip in and reap the big rewards is an upper crust of the dictator and his buddies (which is why Communism is such a popular model with some dictators, but if you can fix the hereditary background to justify it, Monarchy works just as well). A free market is much like a democratic system, except that people "vote" for products (by buying them, for a price they are prepared to pay) instead of for politicians. Companies try to influence this process with commercials --their version of "party political broadcasts" (instead of: "Vote for Us because You know We care about You; We'll give you decent Government" it is "Buy Our stuff because You know We care about our Customers; We'll give you decent Products". And let's face it, what motivates people to vote is the preservation or improvement of their lifestyle (not political ideals), which is the same reason why they buy stuff. Without democracy, no business will invest in a nation where the government may turn around and appropriate their stuff; without laws to protect their investment interests and a mass consumer base well-paid enough (and free enough) to buy their goods. Any business that does do business in dictatorships or communist countries, makes tight buddies with the prevailing forces indeed (as they do in democracies, to be honest --control the goverment and you control the economy) and operates from a safe democratic homebase and is in it for the short haul --ready to pull out as soon as things go sour. And they sell their products to the consumer base at home, not in the coutry where they operate. If companies cannot buddy up to the local government, but really want to do business there because of, say, the cheap labour force or the rich natural resources available, they will fund and support the local opposition to overthrow the government in a coup or civil war, in exchange for an exclusive contract, so to speak. They may do this directly (and get unstuck with the law sooner or later) or more safely do this through their own government, into which they have invested as well... This whole process of funding civil wars for a business return is called "conflict investment". Interestingly, businesses can go the dictator route too and establish monopolies or olicharchies; we all know how bad that is for a true free market economy.
Seconded, and I can get into an overly, ridiculously long discussion because I've had this argument numerous times with International Business professors, discussing pros and cons of inserting AMERICAN capitalism, or letting them develop their own.
I think we have different translations. You don't get totalitarian governments to change by working within their guidelines. Google says one thing and does another. Wanting to help people is just a farce...they run a business. It is about money. If they would acknowledge that I would have more respect for Google. If they were truthful and stuck to their creed they would demand no censorship in order for the Chinese government to benefit financially from Google.
Hu Jintao isn't going to bend easy. He may be more moderate than past leaders, but an all or nothing stance will not get his support. Google has done what is neccessary. While I haven't heard any official claims of democratization, I'd say it will be 2008 or 2012 before we see any significant steps in that direction. In fact, I'm not too worried about China. I pretty much agree with what Nexxo said about the economy determining the government. But you must bear in mind, the vast majority of China is not operating under a market economy. Agriculture and essential business is still State controlled. That will not likely change in the near future. The internet will certainly play a major role in the opening up of China to Democracy in the future, I believe.
Hey, religious wars have started over less. You could take the pragmatic view on this. OK, perhaps with censored access they cannot access certain political sites or topics, but they can access the rest of the world. They can access Bit-Tech.net. They can still see and read about a lot of the world out there, and I think that is more likely to teach them a bit about democracy and a free world than just reading about Tibet or the Tien An Min square massacre. Even with some selected blindspots, they can still make out the overall picture. But without any access at all, what can they find out about the outside world at all? You could look at this the same as with boycotts or trade embargos. In order to show your disapproval of an authoritarian government you can restrict your trade with them. But who suffers, the goverment or its oppressed innocent people? When we slapped an embargo on Iraq for instance, did Saddam Hussein suffer, or the civilian population? In the end, it did not result in the change or overthrow of the Saddam regime; we still had to go in there guns blazing to achieve that. What it did do, was cause a lot of resentment towards us by the Iraqi people for the suffering and deprivation they felt we were responsible for inflicting on them; as if we blamed them for their oppression, somehow (and don't argue: yeah, but it was Saddam who abused the "Oil for Food" initiative. He was a dictator. What else did you expect?). So in the end these civilians were not pleased to see us walz into their country and create even bigger chaos and upheaval. Embargos, whether of food and medicine, or of information, does not work because in the end it is the innocent, powerless population that suffers. And if you want to change a regime, you need the people on your side.
Becoming a democracy is a very long slow process, it doesn't happen overnight with a set of free elections, as Bush seems to think re Iraq, any more than it happened with our Magna Carta being signed or Cromwell executing the king, or the drafting of the US Constitution (which left slaves and women out of the picture) or the French Revolution. Rushing the process almost always results in a bloody civil war, especially when some outside country wants one particular "friendly" faction to represent 'the people'. China's moved a long way in the last few years building up trade links with the imperialist barbarians. Hell, half my PC was made over there. The Google deal is one more step, and like every deal, it involves compromise. Totalitarians don't deal, no compromise; everybody else haggles.
You missed your calling, Nexxo, you should have been a televanglist I'll agree with the theory of capitalisim and democracy being linked, but then I look at it's practical works. I live in a country where a third of people (including me) can't afford to go to the doctor if they get sick. Many people here have no access to medical care except by calling for an ambuance. I live in a country where more and more people will never be able to afford to own a home. I live in a country where many people believe that it doesn't matter who you vote for, they're all criminals and nothing will change. The list goes on. I'm not going to blame all this on capitalisim or Wal-Mart or any of the rest of it, but I do feel that it is in some measure do to a failure as a society to place limits on what is done in the name of the allmighty dollar. I think one of the purest forms of capitalisim that history has seen was the US during and just after the industrial revolution. At that time the vast majority of the wealth was controlled by a tiny fraction of the population. The majority of the population had nothing to look forward to but a life spent working for an employer who paid them as little as possible and tossed them aside if they could not work. What we are seeing now in this country is that the pendulm has swung the other way while at the same time we are facing competition from business models set a century ago. THis competition comes not only from develoing countries with cheap labor, but also from the Wal-Mart business model of being big enough to change market conditions to suit your own profitability. I guess my point here is that while capitolisim continues to show itself to be a better system by providing incentive for innovation and risk, a society needs to enforce limits on that capitolization to prevent the "haves" from trampling the "have nots".
