4 ms·

If Google is returning under the same terms it exited, it could be a sign of 'shift in principles' for the search giant. It could mean Google is OK with censors

If Google is returning under the same terms it exited, it could be a sign of 'shift in principles' for the search giant. It could mean Google is OK with censorship, as long as it is allowed to make money. This is a departure from Google's 'Do no evil' mantra and it could be a sign that the company is becoming more like any other standard company; aimed at maximizing shareholder value and nothing else. Maybe it already was, but there is no pretense anymore.

olalonde 11y ago
Right now, Google is 100% censored in China (blocked). I'd much rather have a censored Google than nothing at all.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- alxv 11y ago
  "Don't be evil" is still included in Google's code of conduct. https://investor.google.com/corporate/google-code-of-conduct.html https://investor.google.com/corporate/google-code-of-conduct...
  - omginternets 11y ago
    >"Don't be evil" Thankfully (for Google), that phrase is completely vapid and meaningless. Also thankfully (for Google), self-enforced codes of conduct are vapid and meaningless. Edit (in an effort to be more constructive): I think it's important to distinguish corporate posturing from actual, meaningful intent. I see no reason to consider Google's CoC as anything but the former.
  - sparkie 11y ago
    Their whole CoC is a roundabout way of saying: Follow the policies! Obey the law! It doesn't suggest that Employees should ever exercise their own moral judgement without first contacting Ethics & Compliance.
stanleydrew 11y ago
You started this comment as a hypothetical, but finished it with certainty. I don't think you're being intentionally disingenuous but I wanted to point out that your comment's conclusion relies completely on "[i]f Google is returning under the same terms it exited...".
bpodgursky 11y ago
I don't think it's really that easy. Pulling out of China didn't prevent any evil, it just moved it to Baidu. Would the world have been a slightly-less-censored place if Google had stuck it out in China, filtered some results, and pushed back in others? I think probably yes. Either way, having more competition between search engines in China couldn't possibly reduce information flow. Maybe this will make it more likely people can find banned content one way or the other. Turns out China can live without Google, and they need a plan B.
dchest 11y ago
Google, and most other businesses, are already "OK" with censorship, because governments force them to perform it: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_Harmful_to_Young_Persons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_H... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A... The fact that these censorship laws come from countries which are called "democratic" doesn't mean that we should suddenly change the definition of the word. Here'a a Wikipedia article about Google's censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google
- fauigerzigerk 11y ago
  I think there needs to be a bit more flesh on the term "censorship" or we risk making everything appear the same and shrug it off as normal. In my view it makes sense to distinguish at least these forms of censorship: a) Censorship with the purpose of keeping the rulers of a country in power by suppressing criticism of their work or themselves. b) Censorship that attempts to enforce some culture specific definition of decency, often oppressing sexual minorities, atheists or religious minorities. c) Censorship that is meant to enforce copyrights and other private interests like reputation or credit standing. d) Censorship to support legitimate work of the police, the courts and the security services that does not in effect amount to (a). I think it's important to acknowledge that (a) dominates all other forms of censorship because it prevents the democratic process that will shape the laws governing all other forms of censorship. That is why in my opinion Google should not bow to demands of censorship in the sense of (a) but should keep working in countries where it has to cooperate with all other forms of censorship, even though the direct effects of (b) and (d) are sometimes worse than (a).
  - newjersey 11y ago
    If Google were to exit a market for (c) that'd mean there's be no Google or YouTube in the US. I don't like censorship by an autocratic government either but we are moving to treating corps that are lazy/careless with users' information as victims at home too. > The disclosure of that data is a violation of the Communications Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires network operators to protect customer information. "Congress and the Commission have made clear that cable operators such as Cox must 'take such actions as are necessary to prevent unauthorized access to such information by a person other than the subscriber or cable operator,'" Travis LeBlanc, the chief of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, wrote in an order filed November 5. "Furthermore, telecommunications carriers such as Cox must take 'every reasonable precaution' to protect their customers’ data. In addition, the law requires carriers to promptly disclose CPNI breaches via our reporting portal within seven business days after reasonable determination of a breach to facilitate the investigations of the FBI and the United States Secret Service." http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/fcc-fines-cox-for-falling-for-lizard-squad-scam-exposing-customer-data/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/fcc-fines-cox-for-fa... Will cox get immunity from prosecution on things like this under cisa? Google should push for protection of their users data from dragnet type surveillance in China but when we can't trust dedicated fiber optic cables connecting data centers here in the US, we really don't have anything to stand on. It is all very sad.
bzbig 11y ago
Don't you use any product of China? If so, is that means you help Chinese Nazi government do the evil?

olalonde 11y ago

Right now, Google is 100% censored in China (blocked). I'd much rather have a censored Google than nothing at all.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

alxv 11y ago
"Don't be evil" is still included in Google's code of conduct. https://investor.google.com/corporate/google-code-of-conduct.html https://investor.google.com/corporate/google-code-of-conduct...
- omginternets 11y ago
  >"Don't be evil" Thankfully (for Google), that phrase is completely vapid and meaningless. Also thankfully (for Google), self-enforced codes of conduct are vapid and meaningless. Edit (in an effort to be more constructive): I think it's important to distinguish corporate posturing from actual, meaningful intent. I see no reason to consider Google's CoC as anything but the former.
- sparkie 11y ago
  Their whole CoC is a roundabout way of saying: Follow the policies! Obey the law! It doesn't suggest that Employees should ever exercise their own moral judgement without first contacting Ethics & Compliance.

stanleydrew 11y ago

You started this comment as a hypothetical, but finished it with certainty. I don't think you're being intentionally disingenuous but I wanted to point out that your comment's conclusion relies completely on "[i]f Google is returning under the same terms it exited...".

bpodgursky 11y ago

I don't think it's really that easy. Pulling out of China didn't prevent any evil, it just moved it to Baidu. Would the world have been a slightly-less-censored place if Google had stuck it out in China, filtered some results, and pushed back in others? I think probably yes. Either way, having more competition between search engines in China couldn't possibly reduce information flow. Maybe this will make it more likely people can find banned content one way or the other. Turns out China can live without Google, and they need a plan B.

dchest 11y ago

Google, and most other businesses, are already "OK" with censorship, because governments force them to perform it: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_be_forgotten - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_Harmful_to_Young_Persons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Department_for_Media_H... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A... The fact that these censorship laws come from countries which are called "democratic" doesn't mean that we should suddenly change the definition of the word. Here'a a Wikipedia article about Google's censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

fauigerzigerk 11y ago
I think there needs to be a bit more flesh on the term "censorship" or we risk making everything appear the same and shrug it off as normal. In my view it makes sense to distinguish at least these forms of censorship: a) Censorship with the purpose of keeping the rulers of a country in power by suppressing criticism of their work or themselves. b) Censorship that attempts to enforce some culture specific definition of decency, often oppressing sexual minorities, atheists or religious minorities. c) Censorship that is meant to enforce copyrights and other private interests like reputation or credit standing. d) Censorship to support legitimate work of the police, the courts and the security services that does not in effect amount to (a). I think it's important to acknowledge that (a) dominates all other forms of censorship because it prevents the democratic process that will shape the laws governing all other forms of censorship. That is why in my opinion Google should not bow to demands of censorship in the sense of (a) but should keep working in countries where it has to cooperate with all other forms of censorship, even though the direct effects of (b) and (d) are sometimes worse than (a).
- newjersey 11y ago
  If Google were to exit a market for (c) that'd mean there's be no Google or YouTube in the US. I don't like censorship by an autocratic government either but we are moving to treating corps that are lazy/careless with users' information as victims at home too. > The disclosure of that data is a violation of the Communications Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires network operators to protect customer information. "Congress and the Commission have made clear that cable operators such as Cox must 'take such actions as are necessary to prevent unauthorized access to such information by a person other than the subscriber or cable operator,'" Travis LeBlanc, the chief of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau, wrote in an order filed November 5. "Furthermore, telecommunications carriers such as Cox must take 'every reasonable precaution' to protect their customers’ data. In addition, the law requires carriers to promptly disclose CPNI breaches via our reporting portal within seven business days after reasonable determination of a breach to facilitate the investigations of the FBI and the United States Secret Service." http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/fcc-fines-cox-for-falling-for-lizard-squad-scam-exposing-customer-data/ http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/11/fcc-fines-cox-for-fa... Will cox get immunity from prosecution on things like this under cisa? Google should push for protection of their users data from dragnet type surveillance in China but when we can't trust dedicated fiber optic cables connecting data centers here in the US, we really don't have anything to stand on. It is all very sad.

bzbig 11y ago

Don't you use any product of China? If so, is that means you help Chinese Nazi government do the evil?