36 ms·

It is simply not possible to both cooperate with the Chinese (or, to a lesser extent, any other) government against its citizens and remain transparent. Part of

It is simply not possible to both cooperate with the Chinese (or, to a lesser extent, any other) government against its citizens and remain transparent. Part of this type of cooperation includes a requirement by the government for opacity. This is easier for less-principled and/or more closed companies. You can only not-cooperate transparently (and even then, only sometimes). The real problem is you can't have a we'll-publicly-disagree-but-do-it-anyways approach with China like you might elsewhere. There's a reason a CEO might make a public post disagreeing with the approach of one government yet will forever remain mum concerning another. Just stop requiring growth at all costs, chalk up the China (and military) market as a loss, and continue operating at your massively profitable status quo. It may seem like it's a double standard when other companies have access to those markets sans media backlash, but just recognize the differences are known out here in the masses.

iamshs 8y ago
>There's a reason a CEO might make a public post disagreeing with the approach of one government yet will forever remain mum concerning another. Can anybody help me find the video or podcast of a prominent VC from SF heading its Chinese operations goes silent when asked about Chinese censorship. I just can't recall the name or seem to find it in my bookmarks.
Leary 8y ago
Yes! Thank you for writing this. I bought Baidu stocks after the dip and haven't done very well lately. Perhaps with posts like this we can stop Google from infiltrating China.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
> Just stop requiring growth at all costs, chalk up the China (and military) market as a loss, and continue operating at your massively profitable status quo. This is what Google did initially; instead of censoring themselves like the Chinese government demanded, they opted to leave the Chinese market entirely. But that's almost ten years ago now; meanwhile, the Chinese economy / GDP has doubled, its connected population has more than doubled, and Chinese internet companies have entrenched themselves. China will - if it isn't already - be the biggest potential market for internet companies.
- phobosdeimos 8y ago
  "If we ignore China it will go away" hasn't worked. I doubt Google can re-enter the market and be successful though. Their local competitors are well entrenched and Google doesn't offer anything new.
- em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
  Google should have been building tools for bypassing the great wall of china since 2006 when they first caved into setting up a censored search engine. Think of the market potential of being the niche underground websearch in china.
- dijit 8y ago
  > This is what Google did initially; instead of censoring themselves like the Chinese government demanded, they opted to leave the Chinese market entirely. This is the narrative that Google is successfully pushing; the truth is that they pulled out due to repeated hacking attempts. Google did have a censored china version of its search engine.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    Yeah, they pulled out just days after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora became public Censorship story is obviously complete bs
dalbasal 8y ago
First, writing off China isn't that easy. It's a big market and a growth market. Soon it will be the clear number 1. Opting out of china is part way to opting out of being a global business. 2nd is the nature of the best online businesses. The big online cash cows operate on market/niche dominance. A search engine with 5% of Google's search volume does not generate 5% of Google's revenue. Far from it. A social network with 5% of the people you know is a totally different beast to Facebook. An operating system (eg Android) either has a large market share, or it does not have an ecosystem. Size, market share and such are relevant to these businessess well beyond the simple "economies of scale" rationale. They are not going sacrifice this for "don't be evil." 3rd is that by denying governments, Google & FB would be saying "we're allowed but you aren't." FB & Google track and use all sorts of customer data for their own commercial reasons. If it is a privacy violation for the Chinese/US government to see/use this data, why is it OK for Google & FB to use this data? FB decides who should see which article. This is done algorithmically, optimizing for FBs goals. "Old media" had a code of journalistic ethical guidelines, justifying content decisions. FB does not. Why is it OK to widely circulate a (for example) totally false article in order to achieve FBs commercial goals, but not to achieve the Chinese governments "societal harmony" goals? The NYT could answer that question. They'd have journalistic ethic reasons for not allowing governments to influence content. FB can't. It doesn't. Btw, what is true for China is true for other countries too with variations and degrees.
- int_19h 8y ago
  > FB & Google track and use all sorts of customer data for their own commercial reasons. If it is a privacy violation for the Chinese/US government to see/use this data, why is it OK for Google & FB to use this data? Because Google & FB can't lock you up for saying something about Tibet, for example?
amelius 8y ago
> Just stop requiring growth at all costs, chalk up the China (and military) market as a loss, and continue operating at your massively profitable status quo. It could be that it's not just about profit or growth, but about preventing Chinese companies from developing competing technology.
- knuththetruth 8y ago
  How would this work? It seems more likely that Google’s collaboration could allow them access to technology that they will copy and iterate upon. This is what Japan did and they now exceed the US in several technological domains (e.g. automotive manufacturing).
  - amelius 8y ago
    > How would this work? By entering a market as a big player, you effectively steal money from the existing players. Also, you're increasing the barriers of entry for new players.
    - knuththetruth 8y ago
      Perhaps in a free, highly competitive market. But that doesn’t seem true in a state-controlled market like Chinese IT, where collaboration with the government is required. The CCP is free to pick winners and losers, intrude and interfere with little recourse for the companies who disagree with their decisions or end up on the wrong side of them.

iamshs 8y ago

>There's a reason a CEO might make a public post disagreeing with the approach of one government yet will forever remain mum concerning another. Can anybody help me find the video or podcast of a prominent VC from SF heading its Chinese operations goes silent when asked about Chinese censorship. I just can't recall the name or seem to find it in my bookmarks.

Leary 8y ago

Yes! Thank you for writing this. I bought Baidu stocks after the dip and haven't done very well lately. Perhaps with posts like this we can stop Google from infiltrating China.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

> Just stop requiring growth at all costs, chalk up the China (and military) market as a loss, and continue operating at your massively profitable status quo. This is what Google did initially; instead of censoring themselves like the Chinese government demanded, they opted to leave the Chinese market entirely. But that's almost ten years ago now; meanwhile, the Chinese economy / GDP has doubled, its connected population has more than doubled, and Chinese internet companies have entrenched themselves. China will - if it isn't already - be the biggest potential market for internet companies.

phobosdeimos 8y ago
"If we ignore China it will go away" hasn't worked. I doubt Google can re-enter the market and be successful though. Their local competitors are well entrenched and Google doesn't offer anything new.
em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
Google should have been building tools for bypassing the great wall of china since 2006 when they first caved into setting up a censored search engine. Think of the market potential of being the niche underground websearch in china.
dijit 8y ago
> This is what Google did initially; instead of censoring themselves like the Chinese government demanded, they opted to leave the Chinese market entirely. This is the narrative that Google is successfully pushing; the truth is that they pulled out due to repeated hacking attempts. Google did have a censored china version of its search engine.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  Yeah, they pulled out just days after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aurora became public Censorship story is obviously complete bs

dalbasal 8y ago

First, writing off China isn't that easy. It's a big market and a growth market. Soon it will be the clear number 1. Opting out of china is part way to opting out of being a global business. 2nd is the nature of the best online businesses. The big online cash cows operate on market/niche dominance. A search engine with 5% of Google's search volume does not generate 5% of Google's revenue. Far from it. A social network with 5% of the people you know is a totally different beast to Facebook. An operating system (eg Android) either has a large market share, or it does not have an ecosystem. Size, market share and such are relevant to these businessess well beyond the simple "economies of scale" rationale. They are not going sacrifice this for "don't be evil." 3rd is that by denying governments, Google & FB would be saying "we're allowed but you aren't." FB & Google track and use all sorts of customer data for their own commercial reasons. If it is a privacy violation for the Chinese/US government to see/use this data, why is it OK for Google & FB to use this data? FB decides who should see which article. This is done algorithmically, optimizing for FBs goals. "Old media" had a code of journalistic ethical guidelines, justifying content decisions. FB does not. Why is it OK to widely circulate a (for example) totally false article in order to achieve FBs commercial goals, but not to achieve the Chinese governments "societal harmony" goals? The NYT could answer that question. They'd have journalistic ethic reasons for not allowing governments to influence content. FB can't. It doesn't. Btw, what is true for China is true for other countries too with variations and degrees.

int_19h 8y ago
> FB & Google track and use all sorts of customer data for their own commercial reasons. If it is a privacy violation for the Chinese/US government to see/use this data, why is it OK for Google & FB to use this data? Because Google & FB can't lock you up for saying something about Tibet, for example?

amelius 8y ago

> Just stop requiring growth at all costs, chalk up the China (and military) market as a loss, and continue operating at your massively profitable status quo. It could be that it's not just about profit or growth, but about preventing Chinese companies from developing competing technology.

knuththetruth 8y ago
How would this work? It seems more likely that Google’s collaboration could allow them access to technology that they will copy and iterate upon. This is what Japan did and they now exceed the US in several technological domains (e.g. automotive manufacturing).
- amelius 8y ago
  > How would this work? By entering a market as a big player, you effectively steal money from the existing players. Also, you're increasing the barriers of entry for new players.
  - knuththetruth 8y ago
    Perhaps in a free, highly competitive market. But that doesn’t seem true in a state-controlled market like Chinese IT, where collaboration with the government is required. The CCP is free to pick winners and losers, intrude and interfere with little recourse for the companies who disagree with their decisions or end up on the wrong side of them.