4 ms·

Google is already censoring specific searches all over the world, in the EU for example, the right to be forgotten and many "hate speech" laws already force goo

Google is already censoring specific searches all over the world, in the EU for example, the right to be forgotten and many "hate speech" laws already force google to censor many sites that are filtered out.

alexandercrohde 8y ago
All the more reason to take a stand right now.
- patrickaljord 8y ago
  Why single out China though? If Google had to stop doing business in any country that forces it to censor stuff, they would not be allowed anywhere, I think even the US forces them to filter out illegal gambling. Where does it stop?
  - alexandercrohde 8y ago
    You're right, maybe it shouldn't stop at China. Maybe google should commit to a policy of "protected free speech" on a wide range of political topics that it will never censor in any country (roughly in line with the first amendment). Great idea.
    - patrickaljord 8y ago
      So you do support censorship, just not on political topics you agree with. Problem is, what's politically acceptable is highly subjective and varies greatly from country to country.
      - _Tev 8y ago
        I read the parent differently - just don't censor political speech. Regardless of whether we agree with it. And that sounds reasonable. I hate FUD-spreading around e.g. immigration, but I don't support any censorship around it. Just debunk the FUD, hiding it won't solve anything, and might hurt a lot when some people get "redpilled" by discovering censored opinions.
  - komali2 8y ago
    It boils down to what the American culture, or I guess the employees at Google's culture, are willing to censor. China wants to censor its own human rights violations, I think there morally bad. Certain EU Nations want to prevent fat right nationalist radicalization via censorship. I think that's clumsy, but good. So hence "why single out China." It stops whenever the employees put up a fight. Isn't that the point of integrating a company-wide value system? You want to mimic an individual value system, in that you are clear on why you made certain decisions, because you can point to your value system?
    - burneracclordo 8y ago
      > Certain EU Nations want to prevent fat right nationalist radicalization via censorship. I think that's clumsy, but good. But, who will be deciding what is considered as ultra-nationalist? Some liberal government that might be overly corrupt and is about to lose the election could just label their political opponents as modern day Nazis and have them be censored on Google search. For example Germany treats the AfD as a far-right party, but in other countries they would be centrist at best. There is no middle ground, because morals wary from individual, we might try a consensus, but that would destroy individual rights. To me it seems that it's best to have a censor-free search engine, perhaps only censor stuff that is related to illegal activities or terrorism, but make everything else be publicly available.
      - PavlovsCat 8y ago
        > For example Germany treats the AfD as a far-right party, but in other countries they would be centrist at best. That is an "example" of an "overly corrupt" government that labels them far-right, because they would otherwise have lost an election to them? What speech of the AfD got censored in any shape or form? Yes, in other countries what is considered far-right in Germany is considered centrist. Those countries also consider what we consider centrist as leftists. So? They're a German political party, they will get judged by Germans, on the grounds of German history, thankyouverymuch. > perhaps only censor stuff that is related to illegal activities or terrorism So basically, back to square one, since you haven't really solved the problem of who defines that and how (which we do actually over centuries, it's not a problem to not have it solved once and for all perfectly, right now -- if anything the problem here is the misunderstanding that this could be possible), achieving nothing other than claiming that the AfD isn't far-right.
  - Husafan 8y ago
    Because China has political internment camps.
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    > Why single out China though? It's literally both the biggest player and the biggest threat to freedom in the world. That's a good place to start.
GeneralMayhem 8y ago
Censorship in the EU is generally intended to protect individuals; censorship in China is meant to protect the ones doing the censoring. The EU has democratically elected governments; China is an authoritarian dictatorship. Those are differences in kind, not just degree.
- bun_at_work 8y ago
  You do see what you're saying right? Essentially, you're saying the government is responsible for the laws regarding censorship, not the businesses that operate there. If censorship existed in the USA, Google would have still started under it, and simply operated with that constraint. This is no different than operating in China. Google can't influence one way or another what censorship laws exist in China, currently. If they had a significant market share there, then they might be able to negotiate terms, since they would have some leverage.
  - GeneralMayhem 8y ago
    Why would they have leverage? Oh no, Google is threatening to leave if we don't change our censorship policy, and if Google leaves - then what? Citizens get upset? I don't think that's exactly a strong motivator to the CCP. That's kind of the problem with dictatorships; you don't have to win elections. >If censorship existed in the USA, Google would have still started under it, and simply operated with that constraint. "If the US were just like China, we'd be in no position to criticize them" - sure, but it isn't. The USA and the PRC are not the same, and I don't think it's a relevant hypothetical.
  - tonyztan 8y ago
    Laws passed by duly elected representatives (whether in the US, EU, or elsewhere) may not be perfect, but they certainly have more legitimacy than "laws" promulgated by an authoritarian regime that sends political and religious dissidents to "reeducation" camps.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  Censorship in the EU is generally intended to protect individuals I seem to recall that anything about Nazis is censored in France. I believe selling Nazi stuff on eBay is forbidden, for example. But I haven't heard about this in a long time, so this may not still be true.

alexandercrohde 8y ago

All the more reason to take a stand right now.

patrickaljord 8y ago
Why single out China though? If Google had to stop doing business in any country that forces it to censor stuff, they would not be allowed anywhere, I think even the US forces them to filter out illegal gambling. Where does it stop?
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  You're right, maybe it shouldn't stop at China. Maybe google should commit to a policy of "protected free speech" on a wide range of political topics that it will never censor in any country (roughly in line with the first amendment). Great idea.
  - patrickaljord 8y ago
    So you do support censorship, just not on political topics you agree with. Problem is, what's politically acceptable is highly subjective and varies greatly from country to country.
    - _Tev 8y ago
      I read the parent differently - just don't censor political speech. Regardless of whether we agree with it. And that sounds reasonable. I hate FUD-spreading around e.g. immigration, but I don't support any censorship around it. Just debunk the FUD, hiding it won't solve anything, and might hurt a lot when some people get "redpilled" by discovering censored opinions.
- komali2 8y ago
  It boils down to what the American culture, or I guess the employees at Google's culture, are willing to censor. China wants to censor its own human rights violations, I think there morally bad. Certain EU Nations want to prevent fat right nationalist radicalization via censorship. I think that's clumsy, but good. So hence "why single out China." It stops whenever the employees put up a fight. Isn't that the point of integrating a company-wide value system? You want to mimic an individual value system, in that you are clear on why you made certain decisions, because you can point to your value system?
  - burneracclordo 8y ago
    > Certain EU Nations want to prevent fat right nationalist radicalization via censorship. I think that's clumsy, but good. But, who will be deciding what is considered as ultra-nationalist? Some liberal government that might be overly corrupt and is about to lose the election could just label their political opponents as modern day Nazis and have them be censored on Google search. For example Germany treats the AfD as a far-right party, but in other countries they would be centrist at best. There is no middle ground, because morals wary from individual, we might try a consensus, but that would destroy individual rights. To me it seems that it's best to have a censor-free search engine, perhaps only censor stuff that is related to illegal activities or terrorism, but make everything else be publicly available.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      > For example Germany treats the AfD as a far-right party, but in other countries they would be centrist at best. That is an "example" of an "overly corrupt" government that labels them far-right, because they would otherwise have lost an election to them? What speech of the AfD got censored in any shape or form? Yes, in other countries what is considered far-right in Germany is considered centrist. Those countries also consider what we consider centrist as leftists. So? They're a German political party, they will get judged by Germans, on the grounds of German history, thankyouverymuch. > perhaps only censor stuff that is related to illegal activities or terrorism So basically, back to square one, since you haven't really solved the problem of who defines that and how (which we do actually over centuries, it's not a problem to not have it solved once and for all perfectly, right now -- if anything the problem here is the misunderstanding that this could be possible), achieving nothing other than claiming that the AfD isn't far-right.
- Husafan 8y ago
  Because China has political internment camps.
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > Why single out China though? It's literally both the biggest player and the biggest threat to freedom in the world. That's a good place to start.

GeneralMayhem 8y ago

Censorship in the EU is generally intended to protect individuals; censorship in China is meant to protect the ones doing the censoring. The EU has democratically elected governments; China is an authoritarian dictatorship. Those are differences in kind, not just degree.

bun_at_work 8y ago
You do see what you're saying right? Essentially, you're saying the government is responsible for the laws regarding censorship, not the businesses that operate there. If censorship existed in the USA, Google would have still started under it, and simply operated with that constraint. This is no different than operating in China. Google can't influence one way or another what censorship laws exist in China, currently. If they had a significant market share there, then they might be able to negotiate terms, since they would have some leverage.
- GeneralMayhem 8y ago
  Why would they have leverage? Oh no, Google is threatening to leave if we don't change our censorship policy, and if Google leaves - then what? Citizens get upset? I don't think that's exactly a strong motivator to the CCP. That's kind of the problem with dictatorships; you don't have to win elections. >If censorship existed in the USA, Google would have still started under it, and simply operated with that constraint. "If the US were just like China, we'd be in no position to criticize them" - sure, but it isn't. The USA and the PRC are not the same, and I don't think it's a relevant hypothetical.
- tonyztan 8y ago
  Laws passed by duly elected representatives (whether in the US, EU, or elsewhere) may not be perfect, but they certainly have more legitimacy than "laws" promulgated by an authoritarian regime that sends political and religious dissidents to "reeducation" camps.
reaperducer 8y ago
Censorship in the EU is generally intended to protect individuals I seem to recall that anything about Nazis is censored in France. I believe selling Nazi stuff on eBay is forbidden, for example. But I haven't heard about this in a long time, so this may not still be true.