http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8581393.stm Go Google! Way to live up to the motto of don't be evil (so far). How long do you think it will be before Google gets the boot?
Chinese Government bans it outright, Chinese internet users are left only with Baidau. Chinese government controls what people read and nationalism becomes more rampant. Any hope that Chinese citizens will have access to the outside world is lost. Almost all other business' will have one rule for world one rule for China because they can afford to given the market size. http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/356623/google-vs-china-whos-got-the-most-to-lose Read Alex's opinion too
The Chinese people using google were reasonably aware that their searches were censored. They're probably also the people who know how to use VPN/Tor, and have a better idea of their country's recent history.
I agree about the dual (and sometimes contradictory) rule systems being implemented to access the Chinese market. Google's mantra of "Do no evil," and list of "10 things" clearly lays out their commitment to democracy in operating a search engine. See #4 Then, read Elliot Shrage's (vp of global communications and public affairs) comments on Google's stragety in the Chinese market as it relates to their mission statement (this quote is several years old): In other words, "we abandoned our mission statement because we wanted access to the Chinese market." From a legal perspective, Google's obligation ends at respecting the laws in the countries in which it chooses to compete (And US laws regarding foreign operations). So if they want to censor civil unrest in Xinjiang, civil unrest in Tibet, the writings of political dissidents, and the extent of the SARS outbreak (to name just a few items), all under the banner of "Do no Evil," then fine. I don't blame them for being upset for IP theft, but they accepted the risk of operating in that environment. Google hardly deserves praise for their retaliatory stunt. What do they hope to accomplish? At the very least, I hope the incident that finally motivated Google to abandon their censorship in China serves as a warning to other companies that even if you "play ball" with the Chinese government, you're still at risk of getting burned.
You don't know the initial circumstances of the agreement that Google went into China. It's better to have search that wants to be free for 1/6th of the worlds population, rather than one that wants to control and monitor you (Baidau). The recent events behind the scenes could have triggered something we don't know about fully, which is why Google is now leaving. You don't just up-ship over a pissy argument about hacking. It could be that they previously toed the line doing the best they could but now the Chinese government wants a firm stop to it. It's always been about control for the CCP.
latest news is that google have redirected all google.cn searches to google.com.hk (ie uncensored). This is a really smart move by google because although HK is part of China it has different laws regarding this stuff.
Do they have a choice? As far as i know its basically the only party there is. Kind of like the peoples party in eastern germany back in the days. Sure there are other parties but most of them are just a front for subdivisions for the cpc
Wrong by your morality, remember. The same as Google's "Do no Evil": who decides what is "evil"? To me, working within the confines of the law, but making the best out of a restricted situation is the least evil thing: of which, Google did. You don't have a choice. the CCP government are Communist, not Democratic, so the policy and political control of the government guides the "best decisions" for the people. But we all know it's human nature to act selfishly and with a billion people it's control and appeasing the most vocal that is paramount to any decision. I agree that companies operating in whatever country has to conform to local law: the same as if they worked in Muslem countries with Sharia law, however what Google is doing now is technically not illegal and if providing competition within the boundaries of international law, then your country has more serious problems.
The age old excuse of the dictator. There are lots of developing countries that are democratic, and no they dont work "perfectly". But theres a difference between something not working perfectly and innocent people being massacred. You sound like you are either brainwashed or in the employ of the Chinese government.
Sorry, but Jiumenkou has a point. We can all see how well a rapid conversion from Communism to Captialist Democracy worked out for the former Soviet Union. It is still in economic and political chaos 18 years later, with a massive discrepancy between rich and poor (and a lot of poor), massive organised crime problems and a crumbling infrastructure. China is another large country with limited agricultural land, that has one billion mouths to feed. It has always been on the brink of starvation (why do you think it sports such an elaborate and varied cuisine?). Its last contact with Western Democracy was colonial oppression and opium wars. Excuse them for not regarding the Free West™ as a shining beacon of How Things Should Be Done.
Capitalist change was forced through by the Yeltsin government to put as much as possible as quickly as possible into private hands as they feared the communists would be voted back in at the next election and would try and grab everything back again. The unfortunate part was that most of the assets went to those close to Yeltsin. Putin on the other hand has dismantled Russian democracy and through ways learned from his KGB days has transferred the media and most of the major corporations from the oligarchs to those loyal to him, mostly ex KGB and military leaders. The point being that Russia is now neither democratic or being ran for the benefit for the people so in the end very little changed.
Biggest difference being, what does a google search return for the Potato Famine or the Highland Clearances or the multitude of wrong/evil stuff perpetrated by the British now or in the past? Now what does a Web search in China return about tiananmen square or the Dalai Lama?
The point being that a quick regime change does not work (eh, Mr. Bush?). Gorbachev understood that and his slow but sure approach worked reasonably well until people got impatient and voted Yeltsin in power because he promised none of that dilly-dallying. The rest, as they say, is history. We've also seen some nice recent examples of quick regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan. That worked, then. All this crap about China needing to become a democracy is just that: crap. Such a pervasive change is going to take decades to work out. Meanwhile it owns half the Western world's national debt. It is not as if China is motivated to go capitalist like, say, Cuba is. Economically it is already doing better than most of us. Good point, well made. But keep in mind that even in the UK we have our censorship. How long has the enquiry into Bloody Sunday been going on? How many have we had on the Iraq war? Do we know what happened to Dr. David Kelly yet? He spoke out on the news. The BBC reported it. How did they fare? Western Democracy: same censorship, smoother taste.
On Bloody Sunday, 13 people were killed. And there are still government lead and funded investigations into what happened. Are there government investigations into Tiananmen Square? Anyone can say what they like about Bloody Sunday, you can write articles in the press about it, on the internet, etc. Can you in China? As you usual, you bang the drum of the oppressor by trying to point out the flaws in other countries as if that makes what China is doing currently right. It doesn't. By that logic, only countries with flawless pasts (ie. none) can make a stand against tyranny.
