9 ms·

> pulled their search engine out of China, defying their censorship attempts They didn't pull their search engine out of China because of censorship requests,

> pulled their search engine out of China, defying their censorship attempts They didn't pull their search engine out of China because of censorship requests, they pulled their search engine because the government kept trying to hack them and steal their source code, which they eventually did. So Google up and left. Source: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303493904575167290011111402 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303493904575167... They like to cite censorship and free speech to look better, but they knew exactly what they were getting into before setting foot in China -- the government of China made specific requirements before they could do business in China and Google agreed to those requirements. In fact, Google was criticized heavily for doing so. So don't buy into their history revisionism, they were on board with censorship from day 1. They had to be, or the PRC wouldn't allow them in.

degenerate 8y ago
Full article: http://archive.is/eOm2B http://archive.is/eOm2B Thanks for sharing, I've only ever heard the "PR" flavor of why they left. This makes more sense.
- DogOnTheWeb 8y ago
  Stephen Levy covers it heavily in "In The Plex". If my memory serves, they censored Google.cn, but did not block users in China from the un-censored Google.com. The PRC alternated between blocking and unblocking .com. My understanding of the final straw was the hacking of gmail to steal the communications and network info of Chinese dissidents and activists. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Giving_up_Google_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Giving_up_Google_...
  - mkol2 8y ago
    That was all part of the official story. It was "only" about 8 years ago so it is available online as well as on HN. "A new approach to China" http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1048800 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1048800 "A new approach to China: an update" http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1211090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1211090 "China condemns decision by Google to lift censorship" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8582233.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8582233.stm
skybrian 8y ago
I don't know one way or the other, but this proves too much. You're talking about this like Google is the Borg and everyone always has the same opinions. It's certainly possible some of the people in the room at the time actually were motivated by free speech issues. I agree about not trusting corporate PR, but the conclusion is that we don't know the company's motivations and it's probably a mistake to treat it as a consistent entity. Executives come and go. Sometimes they win arguments and sometimes they lose them. Sometimes they change their minds over the years.
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  Whether or not people at Google have different opinions is largely irrelevant, unless they’re going to engage in coordinated labor action like they did with the drone program. Google, despite all its townhalls and Q&As, is not a democracy. It’s a corporation governed by an authoritarian command hierarchy who have seemingly chosen to get in bed with another authoritarian regime called the Chinese government.
  - BrandonMarc 8y ago
    > unless they’re going to engage in coordinated labor action like they did with the drone program. What was this?
    - svachalek 8y ago
      I believe this is in reference to employees quitting over the company's participation in the development of artificially intelligent weapons.
      - knuththetruth 8y ago
        That was a big part of it, but there were also several other coordinated, internal campaigns. Here’s a good account by one of the Googlers involved: https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-military-tech-workers https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-military...
joshuamorton 8y ago
Fwiw I think you're being mildly too revisionist in the other direction. The major issue with the hacking wasn't stealing source code, but attempts to access user data. Certainly accessing source code is bad, but imo in general Google protects user data much moreso than source code. (I work at Google)
- DINKDINK 8y ago
  >in general Google protects user data How is storing and cataloging reams of private data 'protecting' it? If your significant other was constantly noting every friend you talked to, every purchase you made, videotaping your every move, would you call that protecting them? To protect a user's data, it shouldn't even be collected in the first place. I think a better choice of words is that Google does a better job at monopolizing user data.
  - bad_user 8y ago
    People mistake privacy for security. Google has one of the most secure services on the Internet. At the same time Google is the biggest threat to privacy. These two statements are not mutually exclusive. People simply don't get what privacy is about.
    - thatcat 8y ago
      Security is complicated. I think the point was that if you don't store the unnecessary data then that data is 100% secure.
      - joshuamorton 8y ago
        Sure, but the corollary to that is that security is complicated. Do you really expect the average user to have a more secure system than what they would otherwise have. In other words, is a Gmail account more or less secure than what you would have otherwise. I think the answer depends, but it certainly isn't always "less". There's some information that you have to store somewhere, and is having a world class security team who works to actively mitigate things like phishing better than storing it yourself?
ehsankia 8y ago
I honestly don't understand why censorship is relevant. It's not like Google is going to change how China works, nor should it be in charge of that. Google being there or not has zero impact on how China treats its people, but at least some users may get access to services they find useful. Limited is better than nothing for many, especially Android users. What DOES matter is Chinese government accessing data Google collects on users. If China takes over the data like with iCloud [0], then that actually puts user's life in danger. My understanding is that they left back then because they couldn't protect users, but they are back because they believe their security is better now. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in-china-is-now-handled-by-a-state-owned-mobile-operator/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in...

degenerate 8y ago

Full article: http://archive.is/eOm2B http://archive.is/eOm2B Thanks for sharing, I've only ever heard the "PR" flavor of why they left. This makes more sense.

DogOnTheWeb 8y ago
Stephen Levy covers it heavily in "In The Plex". If my memory serves, they censored Google.cn, but did not block users in China from the un-censored Google.com. The PRC alternated between blocking and unblocking .com. My understanding of the final straw was the hacking of gmail to steal the communications and network info of Chinese dissidents and activists. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Giving_up_Google_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China#Giving_up_Google_...
- mkol2 8y ago
  That was all part of the official story. It was "only" about 8 years ago so it is available online as well as on HN. "A new approach to China" http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1048800 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1048800 "A new approach to China: an update" http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1211090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1211090 "China condemns decision by Google to lift censorship" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8582233.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8582233.stm

skybrian 8y ago

I don't know one way or the other, but this proves too much. You're talking about this like Google is the Borg and everyone always has the same opinions. It's certainly possible some of the people in the room at the time actually were motivated by free speech issues. I agree about not trusting corporate PR, but the conclusion is that we don't know the company's motivations and it's probably a mistake to treat it as a consistent entity. Executives come and go. Sometimes they win arguments and sometimes they lose them. Sometimes they change their minds over the years.

knuththetruth 8y ago
Whether or not people at Google have different opinions is largely irrelevant, unless they’re going to engage in coordinated labor action like they did with the drone program. Google, despite all its townhalls and Q&As, is not a democracy. It’s a corporation governed by an authoritarian command hierarchy who have seemingly chosen to get in bed with another authoritarian regime called the Chinese government.
- BrandonMarc 8y ago
  > unless they’re going to engage in coordinated labor action like they did with the drone program. What was this?
  - svachalek 8y ago
    I believe this is in reference to employees quitting over the company's participation in the development of artificially intelligent weapons.
    - knuththetruth 8y ago
      That was a big part of it, but there were also several other coordinated, internal campaigns. Here’s a good account by one of the Googlers involved: https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-military-tech-workers https://jacobinmag.com/2018/06/google-project-maven-military...

joshuamorton 8y ago

Fwiw I think you're being mildly too revisionist in the other direction. The major issue with the hacking wasn't stealing source code, but attempts to access user data. Certainly accessing source code is bad, but imo in general Google protects user data much moreso than source code. (I work at Google)

DINKDINK 8y ago
>in general Google protects user data How is storing and cataloging reams of private data 'protecting' it? If your significant other was constantly noting every friend you talked to, every purchase you made, videotaping your every move, would you call that protecting them? To protect a user's data, it shouldn't even be collected in the first place. I think a better choice of words is that Google does a better job at monopolizing user data.
- bad_user 8y ago
  People mistake privacy for security. Google has one of the most secure services on the Internet. At the same time Google is the biggest threat to privacy. These two statements are not mutually exclusive. People simply don't get what privacy is about.
  - thatcat 8y ago
    Security is complicated. I think the point was that if you don't store the unnecessary data then that data is 100% secure.
    - joshuamorton 8y ago
      Sure, but the corollary to that is that security is complicated. Do you really expect the average user to have a more secure system than what they would otherwise have. In other words, is a Gmail account more or less secure than what you would have otherwise. I think the answer depends, but it certainly isn't always "less". There's some information that you have to store somewhere, and is having a world class security team who works to actively mitigate things like phishing better than storing it yourself?

ehsankia 8y ago

I honestly don't understand why censorship is relevant. It's not like Google is going to change how China works, nor should it be in charge of that. Google being there or not has zero impact on how China treats its people, but at least some users may get access to services they find useful. Limited is better than nothing for many, especially Android users. What DOES matter is Chinese government accessing data Google collects on users. If China takes over the data like with iCloud [0], then that actually puts user's life in danger. My understanding is that they left back then because they couldn't protect users, but they are back because they believe their security is better now. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in-china-is-now-handled-by-a-state-owned-mobile-operator/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/17/apples-icloud-user-data-in...