3 ms·

Controversial content and free expression on the web: a refresher

11 points by ashishbharthi 17y ago

CWuestefeld 17y ago
Some democratically-elected governments in Europe and elsewhere do have national laws that prohibit certain types of content. Our policy is to comply with the laws of these democratic governments It seems that they draw the line on where they're willing to censor search results based on the type of government imposing the censorship.
maxklein 17y ago
This is the epitome of hypocrisy. Google censors Nazi stuff in Germany but refuses to censor Tianamen Square? Nazis have a right to free speech as much as any chinese person does. If you obey the law in Germany, then obey the law in China. Be consistent - either make information free or don't make information free. But don't go selecting what you want to censor and what not. Google is not supposed to decide what we get to see or what not. Google is supposed to follow the laws of the country they are operating in. Let the government decide what we get to see or what not - and we can choose to bypass it. If google had censored nothing anywhere, at least that would be a fine and consistent approach. But they cannot go censoring Attaturk insults or Nazis, and then refuse to follow the law in China. That's nonsense and hypocrisy.
- gojomo 17y ago
  Corporations can't generally be scofflaws or practice principled civil disobedience. Google has adopted a standard -- complying with the censorship laws of democratic governments, withdrawing from other places -- that takes these limitations into account. Your alternative standard is just a macho pose, that would cost Google a bunch before being run out of many mostly-free societies. (I don't blame them for choosing battles they can win.) You can argue that respecting Germany's Nazi taboo and Turkey's Ataturk taboo begins a slippery slope that results in more and more censorship over time, and I might agree. (In particular, it rewards the fabrication of new taboos -- new poses of victimhood and danger -- to control speech and thought.) But you haven't suggested a workable alternative for a legally-chartered organization that must yield to the laws of local authorities where it has a presence.

11 points by ashishbharthi 17y ago

Some democratically-elected governments in Europe and elsewhere do have national laws that prohibit certain types of content. Our policy is to comply with the laws of these democratic governments It seems that they draw the line on where they're willing to censor search results based on the type of government imposing the censorship.

maxklein 17y ago

This is the epitome of hypocrisy. Google censors Nazi stuff in Germany but refuses to censor Tianamen Square? Nazis have a right to free speech as much as any chinese person does. If you obey the law in Germany, then obey the law in China. Be consistent - either make information free or don't make information free. But don't go selecting what you want to censor and what not. Google is not supposed to decide what we get to see or what not. Google is supposed to follow the laws of the country they are operating in. Let the government decide what we get to see or what not - and we can choose to bypass it. If google had censored nothing anywhere, at least that would be a fine and consistent approach. But they cannot go censoring Attaturk insults or Nazis, and then refuse to follow the law in China. That's nonsense and hypocrisy.

gojomo 17y ago
Corporations can't generally be scofflaws or practice principled civil disobedience. Google has adopted a standard -- complying with the censorship laws of democratic governments, withdrawing from other places -- that takes these limitations into account. Your alternative standard is just a macho pose, that would cost Google a bunch before being run out of many mostly-free societies. (I don't blame them for choosing battles they can win.) You can argue that respecting Germany's Nazi taboo and Turkey's Ataturk taboo begins a slippery slope that results in more and more censorship over time, and I might agree. (In particular, it rewards the fabrication of new taboos -- new poses of victimhood and danger -- to control speech and thought.) But you haven't suggested a workable alternative for a legally-chartered organization that must yield to the laws of local authorities where it has a presence.