homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 107.22.37.143
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Subscribe to WebmasterWorld

Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 86 message thread spans 3 pages: 86 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Google Agrees to Censor Content in China
jim2003




msg:752476
 1:09 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

while google purports to fight the US govt, it supports the anti freedom communist regime in China

[breitbart.com...]

 

ryan26




msg:752477
 1:14 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Online search engine leader Google Inc. has agreed to censor its results in China, adhering to the country's free-speech restrictions in return for better access in the Internet's fastest growing market.

[seattlepi.nwsource.com ]

Interesting stuff here.

walkman




msg:752478
 1:29 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Google is public company and has to put the shareholders, even if that means sucking up to China's Govt'. MSFT, YHOO and other have already done so, and it would suicidal for Google to exclude itself from a gazillion people.

Let's face it: every US company there has to obey the Chinese laws, and keep their mouth shut as China does X or Y.

[edited by: engine at 8:44 am (utc) on Jan. 27, 2006]

dauction




msg:752479
 3:54 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

SAN FRANCISCO - Online search engine leader Google Inc. has agreed to censor its results in China, adhering to the country's free-speech restrictions in return for better access in the Internet's fastest growing market

[news.yahoo.com...]

King of all Sales




msg:752480
 4:30 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

According to an Article in Forbes today, Google has been resisting the US Government because it fears a restriction on porn. They make revenue from porn, according to the article.

phpdude




msg:752481
 4:43 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

You can not compare the China deal to the current Google vs US.

China is not a free society. (I'm sure King George already has a plan to change that though)

If Google want's to play in their yard, you do as they ask or you don't play. I'm surprised China even let's them serve up any results at all.

So what if Google makes money from porn. What the US govermnment is doing has nothing to do with protecting kids. It's about ridding all porn in the US over the Internet. It will take decades to recover from the damage this administration has done to the civil liberties of law abiding Americans.

Tigrou




msg:752482
 5:37 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

"don't be evil".

uh huh.

"don't be evil to shareholders"

...

King of all Sales




msg:752483
 5:59 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

phpdude-

I thought there was a rule against getting political.

adfree




msg:752484
 6:49 am on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Who is not political?

Knowing your CEO or bigger boss disfavors someone with solid merit or not, making you react in some way or the other (e.g. you don't want to be that guy's ambassador or be recommended by him to that very CEO/boss etc.) ...

Doesn't sound too far away from reality for most of us, but this is 100% politics isn't it?

Bigger scale, bigger impact, bigger publicity, bigger deal.

Don't forget their rightful statement that the pure availability of high tech (Google offering) will impact that society big time, RIGHT ON THE MONEY I say. Better take the back door as to be locked out entirely both in business sense and politically (although not being any motivation for a public company of course).

Remember Glasnost in Eastern Europe, it'll take time but eventually rocks will crack.

dillonstars




msg:752485
 2:49 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

[news.bbc.co.uk...]

Its e-mail, chat room and blogging services will not be available because of concerns the government could demand users' personal information.

What, like the Government did in the US? If Google are forced to hand over that data to the feds in the end, will they withdraw these services completely?

Couldn't they just say NO to China like they did in the US. Double standards or what.

europeforvisitors




msg:752486
 3:06 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

while google purports to fight the US govt...

Actually, Google's legal beagles are fighting the U.S. government. There's no "purported" about it.

And whether you (or we) approve of it or not, their stance is consistent: They expect to honor Chinese laws in China, and they expect the U.S. government to honor U.S. laws in the U.S.

wildbest




msg:752487
 3:13 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>Couldn't they just say NO to China like they did in the US. Double standards or what.<<<

If they just say NO to China, they will NOT be doing business in China! If you want to do business in China, you have to do it as per China law. If you do business in the US, you have to do it as per US law. If you do not want to do business under certain law, you just don't do it. It is simple as that!

US Government, however, wants Google to break the law in the US!

dillonstars




msg:752488
 3:27 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Sorry, I realise I was being unrealistic in saying that they should just say NO to China...

But it would be interesting to see if Google did withdraw it's e-mail, chat room (i assume this means Google Groups) and blogging services if they are forced to compromise their users privacy. I suspect they wouldn't.

g1smd




msg:752489
 3:41 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

So, what would have happened if Google, Yahoo, MSN, et al, had all told the Chinese to get stuffed "sorry pal, but we won't kowtow to your demands"... kinda would have left them with nothing to use at all?

wildbest




msg:752490
 3:50 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Not all companies are happy they do business in China. The reason they are in China is they simply can not afford not to be, since their competitiors are already there... making money!

>>>So, what would have happened if Google, Yahoo, MSN, et al, had all told the Chinese to get stuffed "sorry pal, but we won't kowtow to your demands"...<<<

In answer to your question:
Baidu.com would have been the #1 search technology in just 2 years!

HughMungus




msg:752491
 5:41 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

US Government, however, wants Google to break the law in the US!

Which law, specifically?

wildbest




msg:752492
 5:59 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Many!

walkman




msg:752493
 6:10 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> Many!

I know you don't want to overwhelm us with all those laws, but feel to mention one or two; we can handle it.

wildbest




msg:752494
 6:36 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>I know you don't want to overwhelm us with all those laws...<<<
Correct.

21_blue




msg:752495
 7:16 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

For those of us who got presents from Google this year, take a look at the underside of the mouse: "Made in China" :-). That should keep the conspiracy theorists occupied for a while. But it illustrates that many (all) of us buy and use Chinese products. We already do business with China despite their human rights record.

Notwithstanding the censorship, the internet will not and cannot be controlled. History will judge, but this move may prove to be one of the most significant developments ever in the opening up of free access to information in China.

BigDave




msg:752496
 7:21 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

The US government has *requested* information. Google said no, as was their right. The DOJ has taken it to the judge, and whichever side loses will almost certainly appeal.

Once all appeals have been exercised, expect Google to do what the court orders, even if it includes turning over the data. They are following the law of the land.

Could someone tell me what the court procedures are in China for resisting the government if you don't want to behave as they tell you to while operating in their country?

My guess is that they have exhausted all possibilities.

Yeah it sucks, but if they want to play in China's sandbox they have to play by China's rules.

europeforvisitors




msg:752497
 7:22 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'd imagine that the First Amendment would apply. (The part that says Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of the press.)

But what's more relevant to this discussion is the fact that the DOJ is trying to subpoena materials in connection with a law whose enforcement has already been blocked by the Supreme Court:

[nytimes.com...]

Under U.S. law, Google has the right to challenge the DOJ's questionable fishing expedition. (That's why the matter is in court.) Does Google have the same right to challenge government censorship in China? If not, why would anyone think that the two issues being discussed here are the same?

It's legitimate to argue that Google should pull out of countries that practice censorship (whether the censorship involves Chinese attempts to suppress dissent, German "hate laws," or other laws). But such arguments are likely to carry more weight if they're based on logic instead of specious comparisons.

wildbest




msg:752498
 7:54 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>The US government has *requested* information. Google said no, as was their right. The DOJ has taken it to the judge, and whichever side loses will almost certainly appeal.<<<

People continue to play the good and bad and black and white game! China is bad and the US Government is good because they *requested* first while Google can say no! Hmmm... lets see.

BigDave, the US Government should know perfectly well that they have no right to *requested* such an information! It is well known fact what GWB real perception is that "if you're not with us you're against us". This was repeated many times in regards to "war on terror". That is why so dangerous such *requests* are right now. Well, Google is against US Government because they used their right to decline this request?! If people are ready to trade their rights against security, they do not deserve neither rights nor security.

[edited by: wildbest at 7:56 pm (utc) on Jan. 25, 2006]

HughMungus




msg:752499
 7:54 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'd imagine that the First Amendment would apply. (The part that says Congress shall make no laws abridging freedom of the press.)

How so?

But what's more relevant to this discussion is the fact that the DOJ is trying to subpoena materials in connection with a law whose enforcement has already been blocked by the Supreme Court:

[nytimes.com...]

To be more exact, the government is trying to gauge the viability of the argument against COPA that internet filters are enough to protect children from accessing pornography.

Just saw a thing on Headline News about Google in China. It appears that they're offering Adwords and Adsense to Chinese users. Joy.

walkman




msg:752500
 8:04 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

>> the US Government should know perfectly well that they have no right to *requested* such an information!

Just In: The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Govt' is allowed to ask for, not us. One side says yes, the other no, and the judges decide who is "right."

wildbest




msg:752501
 8:09 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>To be more exact, the government is trying to gauge the viability of the argument against COPA that internet filters are enough to protect children from accessing pornography.<<<
Oh well, to be more exact, am I supposed to enter my Social Security Numbers on my ISP to allow me surf the Web if Internet filters are not enough?

wildbest




msg:752502
 8:15 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>Just In: The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Govt' is allowed to ask for, not us.<<<

Ahha, now I get it!

(CBS/AP) Supreme Court hopeful Samuel Alito headed toward a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsement Tuesday as majority Republicans called him "one of the most qualified" nominees ever and Democrats warned that he could swing the court to the right.

europeforvisitors




msg:752503
 9:03 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

Just In: The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Govt' is allowed to ask for, not us. One side says yes, the other no, and the judges decide who is "right."

What does this have to do with censorship in China?

HughMungus




msg:752504
 10:48 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>To be more exact, the government is trying to gauge the viability of the argument against COPA that internet filters are enough to protect children from accessing pornography.<<<
Oh well, to be more exact, am I supposed to enter my Social Security Numbers on my ISP to allow me surf the Web if Internet filters are not enough?

No. You'd just have to prove your age like you do at an offline store.

wildbest




msg:752505
 11:06 pm on Jan 25, 2006 (gmt 0)

>>>The politics are getting old and souring what would otherwise be an *intelligent* thread that's enjoyable to read.<<<

Thanks for your comment, motorhaven. You may wish to note though, that politics are there from the very beginning in this thread. Lets hope your comment will add value to that *intelligent* thread that's enjoyable to read.

This 86 message thread spans 3 pages: 86 ( [1] 2 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved