Bill Gates Defends Google's Censorship In China 511
worb writes "At the World Economic Forum today, Bill Gates defended Google's actions in China and told delegates that the internet 'is contributing to Chinese political engagement' as 'access to the outside world is preventing more censorship'. There was no reason for technology companies not to do business in China, he argued."
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
The GNU GPL offers _ALL_ people freedom to run GPL licensed software. It doesn't exclude military contractors, Chinese citizens, Burmese citizens, neo-Nazi organisations, etc., that many "Freeware" licenses forbid use of their software to.
Technology is not an effective political weapon except en-masse. The idea of blockading all trade with China to punish its government for not following enlightened Western ideals is pretty much unworkable. The best hope for China is to let its citizens find out about the West and how much better it is (in our opinion) for themselves. That's not going to happen if we try and block these citizens at every step so we can smugly satisfy ourselves that we're not connected to the Chinese government's evil.
Re:Welcome to /. (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact, the majority of the posts to this thread, at least those I've read, seem to be arguing against Google on this, many jokingly pointing out that a thumbs up from Bill Gates, the "Big Bad" on Slashdot, is hardly an winning endorsement of their actions in China.
You neighbor abuses his wife and kid... (Score:5, Interesting)
Having second thoughts... (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in a country where pornography is illegal, so whenever I set up a network I have to install a content filter as due diligence. Personally, I consider abuse of office resources to be a human resource issue, and I make it very clear to management that no filtering technology I can install will obviate the need for a clear Acceptable Use Policy and careful monitoring by staff and management.
I'm not entirely comfortable about blocking content on the Internet, as it's failure prone and IMO removes the responsibility from where I believe it should lie - squarely on the shoulders of the individual members of the organisation. I also find that the local attitude toward the human body extremely unhealthy and socially repressive. But because failure on my part to actively uphold the law of the land could result in my deportation and, more importantly, could harm the development organisation for whom I work, I hold my nose and install the filter anyway.
I still believe that the work I'm doing - bringing the Internet to places where it has never existed before - has more advantages than drawbacks. That's why I'm willing to compromise my principles and to go ahead with this.
That said, I am not working for the local government. Quite the contrary; I work for civil society organisations who spend a great deal of their time and energy keeping the government responsive to the needs of the people. I feel quite ambivalent about companies like Microsoft, Yahoo! and Google, who are in effect doing the government's work for it.
Gates' logic seems to run as follows:
I've tried to weigh the kind of compromises I'm willing to make in the course of trying to benefit society in the country where I work against the purported benefit that accrues to the people of China as a result of the presence of these tech corporations, and for reasons that I can't express very well, I still feel that avarice is leading Gates and co. to make rationalisations.
Anyway, this post is not really trying to prescribe so much as to suggest that the moral and ethical ground is not nearly as clear on either side as we might like. I emphatically disagree with the argument that corporations are amoral and should act only for profit, but at the same time, I have little patience for those who allow Platonic ideals to control their real world behaviour.
Re:Error #236563 (Score:3, Interesting)
So, what he's really saying is that Microsoft's censorship technology doesn't work properly - and therefore they misrepresented themselves in their agreement with the Chinese government. Shouldn't Microsoft be able to deliver on what they say they will? Why is their censorship software ineffective?
Thanks Google for losing the moral high ground (Score:2, Interesting)
By undermining our trust, this re-opened the game for Microsoft.
Bill, if you want to win the Internet (at least in the western world) - just uncensor China - and you will have stolen the moral high ground from Google. I'd switch. Your search results are good enough; and if it weren't that I mistrust Microsoft so much today I probably wouldn't be using Google.
Re:Great way to kill google's image (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Exactly (Score:1, Interesting)
So he's making all the idiots who pay full price for the software subsidize this oppressive government! OUCH! One more big reason to move to F/OSS.
Re:Still wondering (Score:3, Interesting)
You can use google in a number of ways, they provide a number of different services.
Censorship is wrong, but if Google didn't negotiate with China, they would just ban google's whole subnet into oblivion. So, let's say that 20% of people would use google to find some information that may be considered to have something to do with politics. Of that 20%, let's say that some 70% would be ok for China, and another 30% is what they wanted banned. So, google is still functional in about 90% of all searches, that seems better than 0% to me. 100% of zero is zero, you have to negotiate sometimes.
Also, China is an amazingly big market, and also a pretty computer-literate market, so i think it represents a pretty big portion of google's income.
Insidious Filtering (Score:5, Interesting)
Take a look at the Google US search for "Tiawanese Independence [google.com]. Note that the first result is the Tiawanese Independence Party, and #2 describes how Bush Opposes it.
Now, let's take a look at the french site, to see if the results are similar - "Taiwanese Independence [google.fr]". Very similar results.
Let's try this on
Far more insidious than actually banning certain searches is manipulating the results themselves to tout the party line. Leave a few fringe sites up, so you don't appear to completly control things, but remove any site you consider to truly be a threat. After all, they are doubleplus ungood.
That's rather silly.... (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, Google's choices were:
1: Self-censor as per the PRC's wishes
2: Let the PRC do the censoring much more crudely
3: Be banned from the Chinese market
Which is the best solution? It is obvious.
I disagree about the "lesser evil two evils". There is no evil here at all. Rather, it is a question of how much GOOD Google will do. Their choices are some, less, and none, as noted above. Yes, "lots" would be a great choice, but PRC won't allow that. Google should not take the blame for PRC's ignorance.
Why everybody keeps talking about this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Americans should look in their own backyard (Score:3, Interesting)
No one is saying they're stupid. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just that they are supporting China's oppression of political dissidents.
And your post seems to imply that they are doing it because it is more profitable than refusing.
Re:It's not Google/MS/Yahoo's fight... (Score:2, Interesting)
parent SUPER informative... but will they get it? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's one hell of an informative link right there, but it raises a few questions :
a) will your typical Chinese internet user know to do that
b) does this mean that google.com ( as opposed to google.cn ) is blocked from inside China? Must be, huh ?
c) how tough would that be to tunnel around? Possible to doable for the average curious person? What's the likelihood of being caught somehow ?
And no, I don't work for the Chinese government. ;-) :-(.
Unlike Google ( and MSN and Yahoo and every other business ), I'm not that evil
Yea, sorry Google, I understand the business motives and all, but "do no evil" would mean setting up and publishing information about ways to circumvent censorship, not abiding by it... although maybe there's a line between "do no evil" and "do good no matter what the cost", I suppose... but such censorship as is imposed by the Chinese government, to the point where you can't Google the Dali Lama ? Yea, sorry. It's evil no matter how I look at it. I'm trying here. Google may just have to lose that motto.
Of course, as U.S. politics constantly reminds us, we all have different standards for what is 'evil'. Plenty of folks question the non-evil nature of gathering so much data on users that you'd interest the federal government in the results... and non-expiring browser cookies, for that matter. Of course, businesses are in business to make money, anyone under illusions to the contrary should probably wake up now...
Re:Still wondering (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, I really like Google, but let's not delude ourselves. This move was only so Google could get, or keep, a piece of that China pie. It wasn't to bring more information to China.
A minor comparison (Score:2, Interesting)
Both countries have proven track records of jailing political dissidents, allowing child labor, preventing unions from forming,
However, Myanmar is an international pariah both politically and economically. But China? They are the darlings of every businessman and diplomat lately.
The question I'm posing is: should Google (MS, Yahoo, etc...) do business with Myanmar? or stop doing business with China?
Re:Still wondering (Score:5, Interesting)
Relativism (Score:3, Interesting)
I think human rights are universally valid; just because they violate some nations particular cultural habits doesn't invalidate them, and just because they've "Western" doesn't invalidate them either. Individual liberty, government by the consent of the governed, equality under the law, and many others -- these are critical values, that when infringed, repress individuals and create tyrany.
China is a tyranical state -- it represses it's people politically, socially, economically. China violates basic human rights. Supporting the Chinese government and political system means supporting tyrany.
The least Google could do would be to disclose what they're censoring; I think if the world knew the things that the Chinese censored specifically, it would be more damaging to the government than not censoring Google at all.
Re:Still wondering (Score:3, Interesting)
All you need to do is create a reasonable, censor-friendly website about the subject, get a good ranking, and then switch it overnight.
Example:
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananmen+
Second Link.
If the Chinese government wants to waste their time playing whack-a-mole, let them. There's no possible way they can filter the internet when people truly want to find the information.
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Right is not Right (Score:5, Interesting)
(Note: I stole the following example)
Look at this;
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananm
now look at this;
http://images.google.ca/images?q=tiananmen%20squa
Now would you know that "due to local laws some search results were excluded" that this was the difference?
>I simply can't fathom why you'd think the Chinese people are so gullible.
They are not stupid; the people are not getting the information they need. You can't ask for something you don't know exists.
For an example;
http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1722.html [asianresearch.org]
off the grid (Score:5, Interesting)
I escape pretty much literally thousands of tv ads every day - I don't watch stations that air commercials.
You, by not erecting off grid energy sources for yourself and watching tv every day are contributing to that pollution that so bothers you. So turn off the bloody tv and save that energy. Use that time you used to waste being a couch potato lobbying your representatives.
You are addicted to a culture you despise and blaming the culture for reflecting the values you support. That's not culture's problem, and culture cannot fix itself.
Re:off the grid (Score:3, Interesting)
A point that is heard on this and other message boards quite frequently is that today, the only true power, the only true vote, comes in the form of a dollar bill. You do reenforce the notion that dollars are all that counts, which is essentially WHY we are at the mercy of a unilateral power, the so called corporate "dictatorships".
Solar panels and gas generators are notoriously inefficient, and do I need to mention the large initial capital investment that is required? Money is essentially the "army" that keeps large corporate "dictatorships" in power. By the way, if you are running a gas powered generator you are simply playing into the hands of a different corporation.
Worth noting - if you question the stranglehold of these utility companies, see PG&E and the toxic pollution scandels in California (easiest way is to watch the movie "Erin Brokovich", but there is a lot of scholarly information on it). This is a perfect example of a corporation unilaterally submitting the population to atrocities in their quest for greater profits.
Gee, I wonder why he wants this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Nice try, Bill, but China is not stupid. That kind of talk will ban Google AND MSN.
Guh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Democracy isn't necessarily a good thing at all times, as it can actually inhibit freedom if it is not counter-balanced. "Tyranny of the majority", for example.
and any government defying its principles is deficient, if not questionably moral
This is way too stringent. Firstly, what princpals are you refering to? There are many, not completely compatible, views on what a democracy really is.
Secondly, democracy doesn't necessarily product good or moral decisions. A democratic & free organization of humans can decide to do some horrendous things, such as kill other people they don't like.
then why does the same not hold true for corporations?
A managed organization (it's largely irrelevant if it's a corporation) is a pluralist entity within society; each has a certain role in society. Businesses, for example, exist to create markets and to increase the productive wealth of society through those markets (i.e. generate a profit).
Since democracy doesn't necessarily make "good" decisions (i.e. create products or services people need, or do so profitably), it doesn't make sense for the organization of a business to be democratic.
The problem with business, unfortunately, is that lots of bad theories and flawed laws about shareholder value and profit motive have led many businesspeople to forget that, basically, they're leaders in social institutions. And while they're not responsible for the "common good" per se, they at least must be responsible for their impacts, particularly on communities and the environment.
CEOs are just little Maoist dictators at heart. They share more with the reality of the Chinese rulers than they do with you, me or Thomas Paine.
The above statement has no basis in the reality of a modern large business, nor do modern large businesses have any reasonable resemblance to Mao Zedong's principles or tactics.