Google censoring its results

[geordief]

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45041671

"" Google in China: Internet giant 'plans censored search engine'  ""

 

 

If Google acquiesces in  in censoring vital search terms that are politically incorrect in anti democratic regimes such as China ,should it be regarded as anti democratic itself (even if those search terms remain usable on the other side of the firewall)?

 

Would google be "going over to the enemy" and would its actions be indistinguishable from those of the captive populations of dictatorships like China  **?

 

How can this be  prevented? Will the Chinese population  simply learn to avoid Google  and find ways around this new censorship tool (if it comes about)?

 

**fair description?

[Silvestru]

When in Rome do as the Romans do.  Why are we blaming google for this and not addressing the real issue here. The Chinese Gov.

I would find it invasive if you launch your product in a country without taking into account local regulations. (I realise that this censorship is very bad but this isn't google's fight)

If human rights are being violated in China you can expect google to literally perform a sort of terrorism attack and hack the Chinese firewall to bring people cat videos and free speech.

China is not known for it's rational decisions and compassion so I can imagine the ending of the above scenario. 

[Ten oz]

Considering the amount of uncensored propaganda out there I am not entirely sure censored internet searches are entirely worse. Depending on what one is searching for the more frequented sites or links with highest view counts can often be some if the worst sources. Just as Facebook and Twitter are struggling to combat faked accounts pedaling lies I think Google may have to consider the issue as well. We see it often here where posters will link nurmerous articles/reports which are totally wrong and full of errors yet pop up next to quality work on the same subject when one performs key word searches. 

I understand that in the case of China the censorship is not motivated by ensuring accurate information but rather to control govt messaging. The Chinese govt doesn't want info on the internet used against them or for their citizens to know the truth about any number of things. China's motives are wrong yet the issue of information on the internet being used to manipulate society at large is a real one. I personally don't believe the UK is dealing with Brexit or the U.S. with Trump right now if not for the successful dissemination of erroneous information on the internet. Was it un-democratic of Facebook and Twitter to allow fake accounts to share  fake info in 2016? My phone's news feeds gets alerts to news articles based on what's trending but what's trending isn't equal to what's true. Often what's trending is an exaggeration or total lie. 

I do not agree with China but It is a complicated issue. 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I do not agree with China but It is a complicated issue. 

Yes. China needs to evolve at its own pace, which it is. Imagine what China would look like if their government fell over night. Evolution not revolution, methinks. Google has to respect the laws and sensitivities of each country.

Edited August 2, 2018 by StringJunky

[geordief]

27 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes. China needs to evolve at its own pace, which it is. Imagine what China would look like if their government fell over night. Evolution not revolution, methinks. Google has to respect the laws and sensitivities of each country.

 Yes a very good principle  but are we complicit in disinformation  and keep whole populations in the dark about,say Tienanmen Square  if we support search engines that delete that history?

Are we actually holding back their progress by  helping to place the blinkers over their eyes?

And giving international credibility to an undemocratic regime? 

Should we not say "censor your population if you insist   ,but not with our help"?

 

The Berlin Wall was torn down as a result of TV signals being captured over the other side  against the will of the East Germans and the USSR.  Are there still parallels that apply or has the world changed so much?

 

 

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

Should we not say "censor your population if you insist   ,but not with our help"?

Perhaps, but google is first a profit driven business, not (intentionally) an enforcer of cultural norms and mores. They go where the customers are and China has billions of customers. If China says you can’t enter without wearing a red shirt, you first put on a red shirt if entering is important to you. 

Would it be better to open data to the Chinese people and drive more freedom of speech and uncensored search outcomes? Of course, but that’s a government level change that rulers must make.

Perhaps google sees this as a foot in the door and will continue using their influence to further expand openness. Perhaps they feel standing on principle and avoiding China altogether in some “all or nothing, you’re either with us or you’re against us” absolutist stance prevents them from advocating for the people and so chose to compromise. 

The parsimonious explanation, though, is that this is about profits and gaining access to billions of new customers and consequently billions of new dollars. 

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, geordief said:

 Yes a very good principle  but are we complicit in disinformation  and keep whole populations in the dark about,say Tienanmen Square  if we support search engines that delete that history?

Are we actually holding back their progress by  helping to place the blinkers over their eyes?

And giving international credibility to an undemocratic regime? 

Should we not say "censor your population if you insist   ,but not with our help"?

 

The Berlin Wall was torn down as a result of TV signals being captured over the other side  against the will of the East Germans and the USSR.  Are there still parallels that apply or has the world changed so much?

 

 

See below

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps, but google is first a profit driven business, not (intentionally) an enforcer of cultural norms and mores. They go where the customers are and China has billions of customers. If China says you can’t enter without wearing a red shirt, you first put on a red shirt if entering is important to you. 

Would it be better to open data to the Chinese people and drive more freedom of speech and uncensored search outcomes? Of course, but that’s a government level change that rulers must make.

Perhaps google sees this as a foot in the door and will continue using their influence to further expand openness. Perhaps they feel standing on principle and avoiding China altogether in some “all or nothing, you’re either with us or you’re against us” absolutist stance prevents them from advocating for the people and so chose to compromise. 

The parsimonious explanation, though, is that this is about profits and gaining access to billions of new customers and consequently billions of new dollars. 

Or the people from popular uprising. Given our quite disastrous forays into regime change and the unforeseen consequences, I think it's best left to the  principle that change must come from within. I think it's best to engage where one can with a long term adversary so that hostilities can be kept to a minimum and small, progressive steps can made.

Edited August 2, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

59 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes. China needs to evolve at its own pace, which it is. Imagine what China would look like if their government fell over night. Evolution not revolution, methinks. Google has to respect the laws and sensitivities of each country.

China has brought an incredible number of their people out of poverty over the last couple decades. No govt is perfect and globally China supports a variety of oppressive regimes but it is hard to argue that they haven't being doing right by their own people. Few, if any, countries in history have come so far so quickly. Certainly none with China's population has. 

Quote

 

According to the World Bank, more than 500 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty as China’s poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 6.5 percent in 2012, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms.[4]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

 

 

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

China has brought an incredible number of their people out of poverty over the last couple decades. No govt is perfect and globally China supports a variety of oppressive regimes but it is hard to argue that they haven't being doing right by their own people. Few, if any, countries in history have come so far so quickly. Certainly none with China's population has. 

 

Yes, it's quite a transformation really. The news is that Xi tightening his grip but, on the whole, I think it's getting better overall... there is dialogue. They could do a lot worse than have Xi. At least with the current situation and technology advancement, each country speaks for itself and you can see where they stand... this is a definite plus compared to pre-internet when the newspapers and television were all we had, which could be easily be controlled to disseminate  the state mindset... this includes the Western world. 

Edited August 2, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

41 minutes ago, geordief said:

 Yes a very good principle  but are we complicit in disinformation  and keep whole populations in the dark about,say Tienanmen Square  if we support search engines that delete that history?

Are we actually holding back their progress by  helping to place the blinkers over their eyes?

And giving international credibility to an undemocratic regime? 

Should we not say "censor your population if you insist   ,but not with our help"?

 

The Berlin Wall was torn down as a result of TV signals being captured over the other side  against the will of the East Germans and the USSR.  Are there still parallels that apply or has the world changed so much?

 

 

Around 150 million Chinese citizens travel outside if China per year. In China they have access to international movies, books, music, and etc. China is not North Korea. Their people do have access to information. It can be argued the access isn't as convenient or in the same abundance as elsewhere but China has been racing in the right direction. Cultural change within a society doesn't happen overnight. In my opinion it is difficult to imagine China having come any further than they have over the last couple decades considering where they were. 

[geordief]

22 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Around 150 million Chinese citizens travel outside if China per year. In China they have access to international movies, books, music, and etc. China is not North Korea. Their people do have access to information. It can be argued the access isn't as convenient or in the same abundance as elsewhere but China has been racing in the right direction. Cultural change within a society doesn't happen overnight. In my opinion it is difficult to imagine China having come any further than they have over the last couple decades considering where they were. 

OK , good points. I may have over reacted.(to the story)

Edited August 2, 2018 by geordief

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

OK , good points. I may have over reacted.(to the story)

Have a look at this Reuters article on the trade conflict. You tell me who's acting the most calmly - quite frankly, Trump is making  America look like A-holes.:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-rationality/china-urges-u-s-to-calm-down-in-trade-dispute-says-its-tactics-will-not-work-idUSKBN1KN0WN

Edited August 2, 2018 by StringJunky

[geordief]

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Have a look at this Reuters article on the trade conflict. You tell me who's acting the most calmly - quite frankly, Trump is making  America look like A-holes.:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-rationality/china-urges-u-s-to-calm-down-in-trade-dispute-says-its-tactics-will-not-work-idUSKBN1KN0WN

True.  It feels like the pass has been sold. Not only have they elected that embarrassment in the first place but they are yelling that it was no mistake and they may do so again.

I don't want to speak kindly of Chinese policies  but sure ,if comparisons are worth anything they do appear  to be showing a better front in this case.

[StringJunky]

14 minutes ago, geordief said:

True.  It feels like the pass has been sold. Not only have they elected that embarrassment in the first place but they are yelling that it was no mistake and they may do so again.

I don't want to speak kindly of Chinese policies  but sure ,if comparisons are worth anything they do appear  to be showing a better front in this case.

I think the best approach with a political adversary is to focus on the positives and  particularly  their actions.  As a disinterested observer, America is not behaving  very well with China... or Iran. 

[Silvestru]

Quote

“We would advise the United States to correct its attitude and not try to engage in blackmail. This won’t work on China,” Geng said.

I think I like how China handles this trade-war. I like the "This wont work on China" addition. It goes very deep.

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think the best approach with a political adversary is to focus on the positives and  particularly  their actions.  As a disinterested observer, America is not behaving  very well with China... or Iran. 

I also feel the same. The problem is, as things stand right now, those two countries are the most important ones to not F with. (Russia aside as there is a Russian Elected POTUS)

[StringJunky]

35 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

I think I like how China handles this trade-war. I like the "This wont work on China" addition. It goes very deep.

I also feel the same. The problem is, as things stand right now, those two countries are the most important ones to not F with. (Russia aside as there is a Russian Elected POTUS)

Here's food for thought: swap the two leaders over so that Trump has the same autocratic power as Xi... you'd be looking at a Little Hitler. Xi handles it in quite a restrained manner considering.

Edited August 2, 2018 by StringJunky