5 ms·

> It still cooperates with the regime, so the accusation of supporting censorship is valid. Google is following the local laws, like they try to do everywhere.

> It still cooperates with the regime, so the accusation of supporting censorship is valid. Google is following the local laws, like they try to do everywhere. That doesn't make the Chinese government any more of a "regime" than the US government. Which doesn't even need to make many laws like that because companies like Google and FB will happily comply [0], with what they expect might ruffle some feathers [0] before having the regulation forced on them. [0] https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184660/facebook-ban-artist-donald-trump-penis https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/9/11184660/facebook-ban-arti...

raxxorrax 8y ago
Yes they do and they have to, if they want to operate on this market. And if they do they accept disadvantages like censorship. I don't think I like this quality in a search service.
- fixermark 8y ago
  Google also drops child pornography and copyright-infringing search results. It's a quality you can dislike, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a search engine with anywhere near the same order of magnitude of quality that doesn't adhere to these rules also. DDG does. Yahoo does. For a corporation, to refrain from working with the government is to be hounded by the government. That's semi-incompatible with providing services.
  - raxxorrax 8y ago
    From that angle my view isn't that principled that I equate the use of child pornography with being a political dissident. And would Google provide child pornography if mandated to do so? I don't expect very much from a corporation trying to get into new markets. But I will still point my finger at them.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
"Just following the rules" is a poor excuse when the rules are obviously, unequivocally evil. We established that at Nuremberg, if not before. Someone's going to say that letting companies make moral judgments is a slippery slope. But someone's gotta do it. I don't claim access to universal truth, but some things are clearly wrong.
- matz1 8y ago
  The problem is, nothing is unequivocally evil. What you think of evil might not what I think evil.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    Lots of things are unequivocally evil. Rape is evil. Genocide is evil. If you think they're okay, you are wrong. I don't claim universal moral authority. Lots of things are complicated. Some things aren't. Morality can be relative, and there's some interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, but eventually you have to take a stand on something.
    - matz1 8y ago
      Nope, Assume I think rape is not evil, then sure, just as you can say I'm wrong, likewise I too can say you are the one who is wrong. Just saying its wrong/right its useless without any concrete action behind it.
      - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        Sure, anyone can say anything is morally acceptable. That doesn't make them right. The fact that different opinions exist does not mean that morality is meaningless. > Just saying its wrong/right its useless without any concrete action behind it. Of course. That's why I think concrete action should be taken. In this case, Google should not support totalitarian government censorship. I'm honestly not sure what your point was here.
        icebraining 8y ago
        > The fact that different opinions exist does not mean that morality is meaningless. It's at least evidence in that direction. Where's the evidence that it is not?
        8y ago
thisisit 8y ago
> Google is following the local laws, like they try to do everywhere. If only that was true. They routinely fight against government rulings in democratic countries because they can. For example, fines from European Union. They don't simply rollover and pay the fines rather exhaust all measures to try and avoid it. All the while they will rollover in China because that might hurt their chances of getting into a rather lucrative market.
- Aunche 8y ago
  Part of being a democracy means that Google is free to contest any rulings. Also, how do you know that Google isn't negiotiating with the Chinese government?
  - curt15 8y ago
    Fruitful negotiations require a rule of law.
magduf 8y ago
>That doesn't make the Chinese government any more of a "regime" than the US government. They are both "regimes", if you're American. Are you British perhaps? From Wikipedia: "Webster's definition states that the word régime refers simply to a form of government, while Oxford English Dictionary defines regime as "a government, especially an authoritarian one"."
- freeflight 8y ago
  Also from Wikipedia, the sentence right before the one you quoted: > While the word régime originates as a synonym for any type of government, modern usage has given it a negative connotation, implying an authoritarian government or dictatorship. And that's by far the most common context for using the term. Barely anybody uses "regime" as a neutral term, it's usually used to denounce a government/administration as "bad/illegitimate/not democratic". For the same reason "regime change" is called like that to give it a semblance of being a legitimate course of action to "build democracy", while a forced "government change" suddenly doesn't sound all that nice anymore. Case in point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/04/is-it-the-trump-administration-or-the-trump-regime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3b9ab1351cc8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/04/... (open incognito to bypass paywall)

raxxorrax 8y ago

Yes they do and they have to, if they want to operate on this market. And if they do they accept disadvantages like censorship. I don't think I like this quality in a search service.

fixermark 8y ago
Google also drops child pornography and copyright-infringing search results. It's a quality you can dislike, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a search engine with anywhere near the same order of magnitude of quality that doesn't adhere to these rules also. DDG does. Yahoo does. For a corporation, to refrain from working with the government is to be hounded by the government. That's semi-incompatible with providing services.
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  From that angle my view isn't that principled that I equate the use of child pornography with being a political dissident. And would Google provide child pornography if mandated to do so? I don't expect very much from a corporation trying to get into new markets. But I will still point my finger at them.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

"Just following the rules" is a poor excuse when the rules are obviously, unequivocally evil. We established that at Nuremberg, if not before. Someone's going to say that letting companies make moral judgments is a slippery slope. But someone's gotta do it. I don't claim access to universal truth, but some things are clearly wrong.

matz1 8y ago
The problem is, nothing is unequivocally evil. What you think of evil might not what I think evil.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Lots of things are unequivocally evil. Rape is evil. Genocide is evil. If you think they're okay, you are wrong. I don't claim universal moral authority. Lots of things are complicated. Some things aren't. Morality can be relative, and there's some interesting philosophical discussion to be had there, but eventually you have to take a stand on something.
  - matz1 8y ago
    Nope, Assume I think rape is not evil, then sure, just as you can say I'm wrong, likewise I too can say you are the one who is wrong. Just saying its wrong/right its useless without any concrete action behind it.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      Sure, anyone can say anything is morally acceptable. That doesn't make them right. The fact that different opinions exist does not mean that morality is meaningless. > Just saying its wrong/right its useless without any concrete action behind it. Of course. That's why I think concrete action should be taken. In this case, Google should not support totalitarian government censorship. I'm honestly not sure what your point was here.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        > The fact that different opinions exist does not mean that morality is meaningless. It's at least evidence in that direction. Where's the evidence that it is not?
        8y ago

thisisit 8y ago

> Google is following the local laws, like they try to do everywhere. If only that was true. They routinely fight against government rulings in democratic countries because they can. For example, fines from European Union. They don't simply rollover and pay the fines rather exhaust all measures to try and avoid it. All the while they will rollover in China because that might hurt their chances of getting into a rather lucrative market.

Aunche 8y ago
Part of being a democracy means that Google is free to contest any rulings. Also, how do you know that Google isn't negiotiating with the Chinese government?
- curt15 8y ago
  Fruitful negotiations require a rule of law.

magduf 8y ago

>That doesn't make the Chinese government any more of a "regime" than the US government. They are both "regimes", if you're American. Are you British perhaps? From Wikipedia: "Webster's definition states that the word régime refers simply to a form of government, while Oxford English Dictionary defines regime as "a government, especially an authoritarian one"."

freeflight 8y ago
Also from Wikipedia, the sentence right before the one you quoted: > While the word régime originates as a synonym for any type of government, modern usage has given it a negative connotation, implying an authoritarian government or dictatorship. And that's by far the most common context for using the term. Barely anybody uses "regime" as a neutral term, it's usually used to denounce a government/administration as "bad/illegitimate/not democratic". For the same reason "regime change" is called like that to give it a semblance of being a legitimate course of action to "build democracy", while a forced "government change" suddenly doesn't sound all that nice anymore. Case in point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/04/is-it-the-trump-administration-or-the-trump-regime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3b9ab1351cc8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/05/04/... (open incognito to bypass paywall)