38 ms·
They were willing to censor results. No more. I would say that is a big change in the way they are willing to run the business. Something about this affair must
by boundlessdreamz 17y ago
They were willing to censor results. No more. I would say that is a big change in the way they are willing to run the business. Something about this affair must have stung Google. Either morally (going after human rights activists) or in business (increased risks of attacks and infiltration)
- btilly 17y agoThat in itself was a significant enough shift from their normal operating procedure for me to think of it as an exception, and they were bothered enough by it that they felt they had to justify it. Also their justification at least made some sense, so the decision that they came to wasn't entirely out of character with how they generally operate.
- nfnaaron 17y ago"Something about this affair must have stung Google." Maybe China had promised Google clean networks in exchange for censorship?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- ubernostrum 17y agoThey censored results, yes, but I was always intrigued by the way they did it. In case you never looked into it, they implemented a system similar to what they do in the US with DMCA complaints: remove the offending results, but provide a notice saying that some results were removed. Which is really a pretty bold step; rather than being a simple invisible removal, it was an in-your-face "your government didn't want you to see the results for this query" approach.