6 ms·

Google to Censor Blogger Blogs on a ‘Per Country Basis’

63 points by stfu 15y ago

ElbertF 15y ago
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3535502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3535502
- magicalist 15y ago
  Thanks. As I pointed out there, google censoring content on a per-country basis is truly a shocking and unprecedented event: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/removals/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/... It's weird. The last time Wired covered this topic, they focused more on the US government issuing by far the greatest number of requests for user data, and hanging out with Germany and South Korea in the number of content take down court orders (including 18 in 2010 and 16 in the first half of 2011 from, wait for it...Blogger blogs). http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/google-data-requests/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/google-data-request... If Google and Twitter are going to be asked to be conscientious objectors from internet censorship (as moral representatives for the citizens who can't get their shit together), I can think of the first country they should probably pull out of...
- yohui 15y ago
  Thanks. A comment from that discusion, by yanw, points out that this may be more accurately construed as an anti-censorship measure. http://support.google.com/blogger/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2402711 http://support.google.com/blogger/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an... By utilizing ccTLDs, content removals can be managed on a per country basis, which will limit their impact to the smallest number of readers. Content removed due to a specific country's law will only be removed from the relevant ccTLD. EDIT: I imagine it could increase censorship if this weakens Google's resistance to local censorship demands. Though content would still remain available at *.blogspot.com (I assume).
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
junto 15y ago
What does this mean for blogger custom domains?
asabil 15y ago
The end of the the Web as we know it is getting closer
domador 15y ago
Why does Google need to operate locally in each country in the first place? Isn't that just a needless expenditure? More employees, more domain names, more dealings with localized bureaucracies and pesky removal requests? Rather than put itself in a losing position against local governments, Google should let local governments take on their own constituents (and risk angering them by censoring the international version of Google's sites.) A tradeoff between full access or no access to Google is safer for freedom than the complacency-inducing availability of a watered-down, locally-censored Google. Now, if it's a matter of maximizing profit, this move seems to make sense from Google's standpoint. Having some ads on localized, yet partially-censored Google properties would produce greater profit than showing zero ads in a country that completely censors the international version.
- rryan 15y ago
  Well, for one Google doesn't operate locally in every country. Moving into a given country comes with tradeoffs which Google surely weighs. Off the top of my head, I assume the decision to move into a country is a balancing act between these pros and cons: Pros: * Quality of sales operations are probably much better when run by people local to the country. Out-of-country call-centers are probably a huge turn-off compared to someone local who can build rapport and speak fluently in the local tongue. * Google can't hire smart engineers fast enough -- they're just too hard to find. Since smart people are found worldwide, to maximize effective hiring you need to hire worldwide. Cons: * You pay taxes in the country. * You have more responsibility to adhere to local laws, takedown requests, etc.
  - domador 15y ago
    Good points!
pasbesoin 15y ago
2012: The year the Internet died. I guess the Arab Spring et al. must have really scared TPTB. [snark] Now waiting for the first U.S. "per country" based censoring, e.g. of Occupy communication.[/snark] Seriously, though. The lack of wholesale "per country" censorship seemed to be working to some extent to pull world society closer together in terms of understanding and supporting each other. These recent choices seem to fly in the face of such trends.
- motters 15y ago
  Arab Spring/Occupy probably expedited the timeline, but I've been noticing an increasing amount of country specific stuff on the internet over the last few years.
  - pasbesoin 15y ago
    Do you mean with respect to identification/segregation of content by content providers, or with respect to geographic entities' attempts at censorship? Or do you simply mean more and/or more prominent sites using country code TDL's? The second, of course, we have. (Quip: "China was the prototype.") The first, with attendant variation of content (i.e. you get a different view of an individual Blogger blog depending upon whether you are e.g. in Sweden or in Italy) seems rife for efforts to more quietly and piecemeal "pick apart" the Internet's "common voice". Perhaps I'm being alarmist. But placed within the context of everything else that's going on right now with respect to Internet communication, it's worrying. The third I have no real problem with, although I find the many attempts to use country code TDL's to make "catchy" domain names to mostly be ineffective if not annoying. (I'll leave that at the level of personal preference.)
    - motters 15y ago
      I mean a combination of explicit censorship (for example, access to sourceforge in certain countries) and also content providers attempts to control what is seen where (seems like BS to me).

63 points by stfu 15y ago

ElbertF 15y ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3535502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3535502

magicalist 15y ago
Thanks. As I pointed out there, google censoring content on a per-country basis is truly a shocking and unprecedented event: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/removals/ http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests/... It's weird. The last time Wired covered this topic, they focused more on the US government issuing by far the greatest number of requests for user data, and hanging out with Germany and South Korea in the number of content take down court orders (including 18 in 2010 and 16 in the first half of 2011 from, wait for it...Blogger blogs). http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/google-data-requests/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/google-data-request... If Google and Twitter are going to be asked to be conscientious objectors from internet censorship (as moral representatives for the citizens who can't get their shit together), I can think of the first country they should probably pull out of...
yohui 15y ago
Thanks. A comment from that discusion, by yanw, points out that this may be more accurately construed as an anti-censorship measure. http://support.google.com/blogger/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2402711 http://support.google.com/blogger/bin/answer.py?hl=en&an... By utilizing ccTLDs, content removals can be managed on a per country basis, which will limit their impact to the smallest number of readers. Content removed due to a specific country's law will only be removed from the relevant ccTLD. EDIT: I imagine it could increase censorship if this weakens Google's resistance to local censorship demands. Though content would still remain available at *.blogspot.com (I assume).

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

junto 15y ago

What does this mean for blogger custom domains?

asabil 15y ago

The end of the the Web as we know it is getting closer

domador 15y ago

Why does Google need to operate locally in each country in the first place? Isn't that just a needless expenditure? More employees, more domain names, more dealings with localized bureaucracies and pesky removal requests? Rather than put itself in a losing position against local governments, Google should let local governments take on their own constituents (and risk angering them by censoring the international version of Google's sites.) A tradeoff between full access or no access to Google is safer for freedom than the complacency-inducing availability of a watered-down, locally-censored Google. Now, if it's a matter of maximizing profit, this move seems to make sense from Google's standpoint. Having some ads on localized, yet partially-censored Google properties would produce greater profit than showing zero ads in a country that completely censors the international version.

rryan 15y ago
Well, for one Google doesn't operate locally in every country. Moving into a given country comes with tradeoffs which Google surely weighs. Off the top of my head, I assume the decision to move into a country is a balancing act between these pros and cons: Pros: * Quality of sales operations are probably much better when run by people local to the country. Out-of-country call-centers are probably a huge turn-off compared to someone local who can build rapport and speak fluently in the local tongue. * Google can't hire smart engineers fast enough -- they're just too hard to find. Since smart people are found worldwide, to maximize effective hiring you need to hire worldwide. Cons: * You pay taxes in the country. * You have more responsibility to adhere to local laws, takedown requests, etc.
- domador 15y ago
  Good points!

pasbesoin 15y ago

2012: The year the Internet died. I guess the Arab Spring et al. must have really scared TPTB. [snark] Now waiting for the first U.S. "per country" based censoring, e.g. of Occupy communication.[/snark] Seriously, though. The lack of wholesale "per country" censorship seemed to be working to some extent to pull world society closer together in terms of understanding and supporting each other. These recent choices seem to fly in the face of such trends.

motters 15y ago
Arab Spring/Occupy probably expedited the timeline, but I've been noticing an increasing amount of country specific stuff on the internet over the last few years.
- pasbesoin 15y ago
  Do you mean with respect to identification/segregation of content by content providers, or with respect to geographic entities' attempts at censorship? Or do you simply mean more and/or more prominent sites using country code TDL's? The second, of course, we have. (Quip: "China was the prototype.") The first, with attendant variation of content (i.e. you get a different view of an individual Blogger blog depending upon whether you are e.g. in Sweden or in Italy) seems rife for efforts to more quietly and piecemeal "pick apart" the Internet's "common voice". Perhaps I'm being alarmist. But placed within the context of everything else that's going on right now with respect to Internet communication, it's worrying. The third I have no real problem with, although I find the many attempts to use country code TDL's to make "catchy" domain names to mostly be ineffective if not annoying. (I'll leave that at the level of personal preference.)
  - motters 15y ago
    I mean a combination of explicit censorship (for example, access to sourceforge in certain countries) and also content providers attempts to control what is seen where (seems like BS to me).