Google, don't politicalize yourself — China's official news agency

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-03/21/c_13219289.htm

by pc • 16 years ago

43 75 16 years ago

news.xinhuanet.com

barredo• 16 years ago

It's not about aligning with certain politics (!= policies).

It's about something higher, about human rights.China should not be giving any lessons to anyone about this kind of stuff.

I guess China fears that Google's movement will start a pattern of western tech/internet companies leaving China.

Would Chinese companies be able to fill the void leave behind be those companies? I'm not sure.

We are about to watch a game of victimhood (sorry, not sure if that's the word) played by the Chinese Govt. Let's see how that works.

stuntmouse• 16 years ago

Given the rate of progress of China's internet market and its size, I think we (and they) can bet that, yes, someone will fill any gaps.

nkassis3• 16 years ago

I'm not to certain about that. Chinese internet users will need to be as valuable as other users around the world to warrant more investment in new companies. Unless some one has data that contradicts this, I believe that revenues per user is much much lower in China then elsewhere and it might take a while for it to catch up. The total revenues of the Chinese internet market doesn't seem to be worth it currently. It's certainly a future investment and it doesn't seem that foreign companies are winning the battle with local companies for the market. It seem that the Chinese Internet market is isolating itself.

chrischen3• 16 years ago

Not just tech companies I'm sure. For example HSBC moved it's world headquarters to London before Hong Kong was handed over to the PRC.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsbc#History

If your company is in China, it's implicitly controlled by the gov't since it has authoritarian rule.

jhancock3• 16 years ago

That's not a correct statement. Your Chinese company has the rights set forth by their laws. It is true their judicial process is prone to more corruption than in the U.S. But thats spotty and changing as well. You just can't always count on winning a court battle in China because your rich and connected anymore.

I have witnessed very powerful Chinese officials and businessmen not take action against a rival because the action would have been unlawful and they didn't want to risk the penalties. I have seen mid-level government officials block attempted actions from senior officials because the actions didn't follow the rules.

andrewtj• 16 years ago

From my understanding of the use of TaoBao and Baidu in comparison to eBay and Google, void is a description of what western companies occupy in the Chinese marketplace — not what would be left by their leaving.

fnid213• 16 years ago

I really don't think China is afraid of Google leaving at all. Baidu is beating Google in China. China also has hackers that according to Google themselves are able to defeat Google's security measures, so I'd say China will do plenty fine without Google.

rscott• 16 years ago

I would never have found this and appreciate you posting it.

Fascinating, though I hope history will disagree with the message of this piece.

benologist8• 16 years ago

I'm not sure history should disagree with it. The underlying message is that corporations shouldn't be playing politics, and that's an increasingly popular public sentiment in the USA as well (or the internet amplifies it).

How is Google trying to manipulate foreign government different from the health industry lobbying for their own interests?

nkassis3• 16 years ago

No company should be forced to do something it's executives and employees find morally wrong. They are not actively trying to usurp the Chinese government and I don't see anyone claiming Google is bribing people and push for self serving laws in Beijing.

Lobbying can be ok if it's done in a fair and open matter. Which it is not. Lets not forget that corporations have employees and those employees are often better off when their corporation has an easier time doing business.

fleitz• 16 years ago

Did everyone forget that China tried to break into their network?

Most corporations don't want to be involved in the politics game. However, as MS found out if you aren't involved you quickly become a target of opportunity.

It's a free world for the Chinese gov't if they'd like to do business with companies like Google they'll have to offer a mutually beneficial arrangement.

fnid213• 16 years ago

Well, for one, lobbying is legal. Why Google isn't lobbying the Chinese government to change its censorship laws is my question. Instead, they are putting people in harm's way and tarnishing the relationship between east and west.

What really are they going to accomplish? What are they trying to accomplish?

defen• 16 years ago

> The underlying message is that corporations shouldn't be playing politics, and that's an increasingly popular public sentiment in the USA as well (or the internet amplifies it).

It all depends on what kind of politics are being played. Plenty of people in the U.S. supported divestment from South Africa because of apartheid, and would probably still do so if it still existed.

ibarrac3• 16 years ago

They say:

In fact, no country allows unrestricted flow on the Internet of pornographic, violent, gambling or superstitious content, or content on government subversion, ethnic separatism, religious extremism, racialism, terrorism and anti-foreign feelings.

Not true, the US allows all this, with very minor exceptions.

dangrossman• 16 years ago

Online gambling is, at least to some degree, illegal in the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling

So are certain types of porn and anti-government websites.

nkassis3• 16 years ago

At the very least it respects most's definition of what is acceptable under free speech.

radicaldreamer• 16 years ago

The sites may be illegal, but are not blocked. There are plenty of people who still gamble online from the US through off-shore accounts and using off-shore websites.

fnid213• 16 years ago

There are also lots of laws about fraud. Imagine if a Chinese company came to the U.S. making fraudulent claims about its products. We'd condemn them, yet we applaud Google. I don't understand.

ibarrac3• 16 years ago

Yes, online gabling is mostly illegal, thus my "minor exceptions".

But all types of porn except child porn are allowed as far as I know. Definitely all types of anti-government websites are allowed. The first amendment confers very strong protection on free speech.

This Chinese news release is trying to mislead. I think the average Chinese citizen would be shocked to learn the level of freedom of expression and access to information in the US.

gojomo2• 16 years ago

But the websites of offshore gambling sites aren't blocked at the national border; it is the transaction, rather than publishing information, which is illegal.

(Apparently, the state of Kentucky has recently tried to seize gambling-related domain names held by remote entities, but that's a new local enforcement tactic which may not endure.)

jbellis• 16 years ago

Pretty smooth of the PRC to redefine this as "Google trying to make a political statement" rather than "Google deciding it can't do business in a country that sponsors attacks on its systems."

daeken• 16 years ago

I see no reason why these two are mutually exclusive. If I boycott a company due to disliking their business practices, can I not also be making a statement?

In fact, I support Google in this because it is making a statement, even if that's not the primary intention.

psyklic• 16 years ago

The only thing that I wonder (and fear) about this piece -- is whether this is the only slant on the story that Chinese citizens will be allowed to access.

fnid213• 16 years ago

I fear for the safety of the Google employees who are still there. At best they are going to lose their jobs -- at worst, their lives.

angstrom3• 16 years ago

I suspect that's unlikely. Google and it's country specific domains are the most trafficked sites on the internet. The level of visibility is too high to make examples of anyone. Worst case scenario they block access and carry on like nothing changed. Best case, China realizes it must make certain concessions if it wants to continue growing it's economy and fostering competition. There is no reason India should be the only billion person democracy.

froo• 16 years ago

<sacasm> ...except Sealand </sarcasm>

Anyway, there is a great divide between letting a good majority of this kind of stuff through vs blocking as much of it as you can (eg, 99.9% vs ~30%)

In both instances you can say that no country is allows unrestricted flow, but that is not an adequate measuring stick for data flow.

iamwil• 16 years ago

It's a usual stance for China to claim some situation is an internal affair to block outside meddling.

When the bird flu broke out, China blocked Taiwan's access to the World Health Organization to get information on how to deal with it--mostly on the grounds that it is an internal affair.

natch• 16 years ago

Ironic for the Chinese government to talk about obeying laws, when they don't even obey their own laws.

Maybe Google should point this out to them.

And there's no rule saying companies need to stay out of politics. Even if there was, Google, from the outset, said it was going to be a different kind of company.

louislouis2• 16 years ago

"no matter in which country you conduct business, you have to obey the laws and regulations there."

Quoted for truth.

jrockway2• 16 years ago

That's why they're leaving, so they don't have to obey the oppressive third-world laws and regulations there.

louislouis2• 16 years ago

"we intend to continue R&D work in China and also to maintain a sales presence there"

Doesn't sound like they're leaving to me. If they were to leave properly they would shut down all operations and 404 the .cn domain. Instead they've just redirected and uncensored their services. To me thats just more drama, another move on the chessboard.

jrockway2• 16 years ago

The US basically does. The government never censors the Internet; producing child pornography or running an illegal gambling site may be illegal, but there is no filter on Google to prevent you from finding those things. Terrorism, anti-foreign feelings, racism, government subversion, ethnic separatism, etc., are reprehensible, but are protected speech here. The government could find itself in trouble if it prevented someone from publishing something about one of those topics ("prior restraint"), and has lost many cases where it has tried to remove this information after the fact.

Basically, anything goes except libel, obscenity with no cultural value, and speech to incite imminent lawless action.

So basically Xinhua, get a clue. China is the outlier.

gojomo2• 16 years ago

Well, even countries with very US-like legal heritage, such as Australia and Britain, have tried to impose national-border content-filtering. So sadly, the US is still somewhat of an outlier. Turns out putting an explicit absolutist free-speech right in the written constitution was a good idea!

bad_user• 16 years ago

Yeah, but even in Britain respected publications are free to speak their mind about inappropriate government actions, like cases where freedom of speech is violated, like this one ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston...

Which is even debatable if it was the right thing to do, and it's not like you can't find that movie (Fitna) on the Internet with a simple Google search.

Sorry, but this article is just setting up a straw man.

And it's the same story all over ... governments try to impose more restrictions to "protect" it's citizens ... people fight back by rioting or voting against the government. That's how democracy works ... you win some, you lose some, but mostly it's a balance (I'm thinking about the state of affairs in the EU here).

What really worries me is the current situations where many people and companies are paying lip service to China's policies, even though it's not in their interest to do so.

Sooner or later other governments will adopt similar policies ... hey, if it works so wonderfully in China, why shouldn't it work for the rest of the world? Australia is apparently doing just that ... although it's not like Australia hasn't been guilty of other crimes against humanity, like genocide, so personally I don't have any expectations from them.

benologist8• 16 years ago

Internet censorship: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship

Pervasive: Burma, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, People's Republic of China, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam

Substantial :Australia, Bahrain, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen

Nominal and others: Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Ireland, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Malaysia , Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America

Specifically the US, although not much:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Unit...

mark_h• 16 years ago

Man that makes sad -- go Australia :S Although, note that at this stage it is still "nominal" in practice while the plans are yet to be implemented.

ibarrac3• 16 years ago

Yep, that paragraph is crafted for internal consumption.

The average American reads this and thinks "that's not quite right, I don't have most of these restrictions."

The average Chinese reads this and thinks "yeah, every country censors, why is Google singling us out?"

fnid213• 16 years ago

If someone was found showing child porn on the net, arrested, and put in prison -- which does happen, even if those children are anime characters -- is that not censorship? What is the difference between putting someone in jail for producing a particular type of content and censorship? The FCC fines television stations for saying "fuck" on the air or showing female nipples -- is there a difference? I'd rather my fuck be censored out than fined for it. If it is censored, I don't lose anything.

Frankly, if I was producing some kind of illegal content that today would land me in jail, I'd rather the government just censor it and leave me my freedom to walk around and produce other types of content that aren't illegal.

I don't see a lot of difference between censorship and threats from the secret service for putting a picture of gwb on your myspace page with a knife stabbed through his hand. If that poor teen had simply had her photoshopped image censored she'd probably have had a less traumatic experience with the whole thing -- she'd still be livid -- but she wouldn't be afraid.

The point is that censorship does happen in the U.S. Playboys have black plastic covers on them in the convenient stores here, but not in Switzerland. Why is it okay for our government to censor some types of things and not others? Where do we draw the line? Perhaps it is being drawn between what most of us find acceptable and that which we don't.

Perhaps China is drawing the same sort of line in what they require Google to filter? Perhaps the stuff they censor creates a social environment that most people don't appreciate just like fuck and nipples in the U.S.

Keyframe• 16 years ago

How many people in China have internet access? How many people in China even know what Google is? How many people in China do even care about all of this? I may be naive, but I don't see chinese people being vocal on any matter regarding "their rights" - either they are satisfied (in majority) with their system and it's not anyone's business outside of China, or they are contempt but silent about it - which, again, shouldn't be anyone's business outside of China until they ask for outside help.

eklitzke• 16 years ago

I think that this is an interesting and valid point. My perception from visiting China and talking to recent mainland immigrants to America is that most people in China think that their government is basically doing a good job, and basically looking out for the best interests of the Chinese people. No one there would argue that everything the government does is in their best interest, but if you think that the government is doing a good job on most issues, you'll probably be complacent.

To a certain degree, the same thing is true in America and other western nations. There are a lot of issues to be upset with, and that most people would disagree with the government on. Everyone has problems with the government, and on certain issue most people think the government is wrong (e.g. most people think that Congress spends money wastefully, and that our representatives look at more for their own interests than those of their constituents). But as long as you basically feel that the government is doing the right things -- and I think most people do, looking at things from a holistic perspective -- then you're likely to forgive the transgressions of your government. Or at least you'll limit your disagreement to grumblings, instead of actively protesting or campaigning against the government.

I would argue that the position of the Chinese people is, if not right, at least defensible on these grounds. The quality of life has been improving rapidly in China, and certainly the prestige of the country has been on a huge upswing for the past twenty years (e.g. in economic terms, the space program, political power in international diplomacy, etc.). In such an environment you might not be too worried about Internet censorship (most of which is probably censoring things you don't really care about). As their expansion catches up with them, and the rate that China can increase its wealth and prestige slows down, that will probably change, and people will find more reason to be concerned with censorship and other human rights issues within China. But that could be a while off.

chrischen3• 16 years ago

> It is unfair for Google to impose its own value and yardsticks on Internet regulation to China, which has its own time-honored tradition, culture and value.

But fair for the CCP to impose it's filtering on the people.

I think the fundamental issue is that they are trying to make improvements (opening up) to its policies but wants to do it on it's on terms, which is slightly understandable. "It" being the Chinese communist party. And the prevailing sentiment among all Chinese is that the west (aka pretty much just US) is meddling in the "opening up." I mean after what the US did in Iraq, I can see why they are hostile.

cemregr• 16 years ago

Has this been machine translated, I wonder why is the English of the article so poor? News agencies in China don't have anybody who write proper English?

sipior• 16 years ago

"Anybody" is singular, so your last sentence should be: "News agencies in China don't have anybody who writes proper English?"

Google, don't politicalize yourself — China's official news agency

Related Stories