[cindygirl]

As you know Google (Motto: Don't be Evil) recently struck a deal with the Chinese government to provide Google Searches to Chinese Internet users.

Google China and Google give different results for the same searches.

These are the results for an image search under 'Tiananmen' in google.com

http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen

These are the results for the same search in google.cn

http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen


I suppose we should at least be grateful that google allows surfers without a Chinese IP to see what it is doing. It would be more freaky if we could not access google.cn.

[Badyalectlawl]

I see no difference at all between the two links, since Google reroutes me to the Swedish page anyway.
But I did manage to do a search at the university on "Falun Gong" on both the Chinese and English version of Google. Quite interesting.

But then, I think people are being a bit too hard on Google. They are just doing what all other companies do when they start activity in China: Follow the law.
Which sucks, but everyone else does it too...

[Usogwdkb]

If you could access the two you would find that the google.com results show protesters and tanks and all the images you might associate with the Tiananmen Square protests.

The .cn site shows what appears to be tourist images.

In answer to h2o, I laud Google's refusal to hand over search data to the US government. It also makes sound sense to be inside the Great Firewall of China, rather than outside chucking bricks.

What upsets me - and prehaps it shouldn't - is that faced with its first difficult moral decision Google took the easy route out. As one blogger said, it's like watching Anekin grow into Darth Vader.

It doesn't suprise me that other comapnies do it. Indeed, most textiles producers have to do it to remain competitive. But for Google, a company that has been brilliantly selling a service based on trust, to do it smacks of short-term profiteering.

[enurneAcourdy]

It doesn't suprise me that other comapnies do it. Indeed, most textiles producers have to do it to remain competitive. But for Google, a company that has been brilliantly selling a service based on trust, to do it smacks of short-term profiteering. While I'm all anti-censorship and pro open-source ra ra ra, the laws the law. If the government is censoring them, does that mean they should be deprived of googles general loveliness? I probably use google 20 or 30 times per day doing compsci related stuff, probably none of which will be censored in china. Kudos for google for having the flexibility to adapt to other cultures I say.

The trust that they build is because all of their stuff is a) free and b) really good quality.

[Doctorpills]

Do you know there is centership and sensation.
China covers thing up so people don't get upset but it always come out in the end.

Western countries try to make things shocking.. Thats why you have to think for your self for true reality.

[snunsebrugs]

I agree with Najaf.
I don't agree at all with China's censorship, but it is the law in their country, and you need to obey the law in order to operate there.
What upsets me - and prehaps it shouldn't - is that faced with its first difficult moral decision Google took the easy route out. Who's morals are you talking about here? What you consider moral may be highly immoral to someone else. Each country has to decide for itself what constitutes morality for them. This means that each country, and even different regions in the same country, will have different ideas. To condemn a multi-national corporation for obeying the laws of the country in which it is working sounds pretty irrational to me.

China covers thing up so people don't get upset but it always come out in the end. Not in China. Since all of the media sources are closely controlled by the government, how do you figure that it "always comes out in the end?" The rest of the world may know but the Chinese people won't, and that's the reason for the government's censorship.

[tweriaroats]

What upsets me - and prehaps it shouldn't - is that faced with its first difficult moral decision Google took the easy route out. As one blogger said, it's like watching Anekin grow into Darth Vader.

It doesn't suprise me that other comapnies do it. Indeed, most textiles producers have to do it to remain competitive. But for Google, a company that has been brilliantly selling a service based on trust, to do it smacks of short-term profiteering.

Well, it's not really a moral decision, is it? Google is essentially a commercial service. No one is going to sponsor your search results if they are not approved by the Chinese government (not approved =censored =no one can see). Besides, China has a massive potential market - just look at the internet population growth in the past 5 years - no one can really stop doing business in there..!

[pouslytut]

Definitions of moral on the Web:

* relating to principles of right and wrong; i.e. to morals or ethics; "moral philosophy"
* concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles; "moral sense"; "a moral scrutiny"; "a moral lesson"; "a moral quandary"; "moral convictions"; "a moral life"
* ethical: adhering to ethical and moral principles; "it seems ethical and right"; "followed the only honorable course of action"; "had the moral courage to stand alone"
* arising from the sense of right and wrong; "a moral obligation"
the significance of a story or event; "the moral of the story is to love thy neighbor"
* psychological rather than physical or tangible in effect; "a moral victory"; "moral support" Just because it is in a country's laws does not make one's rule moral, or ethical. Rarely does the commercial world care about morality within its business, for mostly they would lose money; which nobody really wants.
Censorship in any form is immoral, by being an accomplice (adhering to the rule) Google is guilty of an immoral decision, and tarnishing the true spirit of the internet community. Which isn't to mean that I do not understand its decision, or even utterly disagree with it. Still... how would/do you react to censorship within your own countries... anger, annoyance, outrage?
Or do you simply say, oh well, it IS the law, so it must be obeyed...

[Alex Photographer]

In a country of 2 Billion people, some sort of control must be put in place or else there will be no unity/standards whatsoever. And with that control, although through many historical hardships China has faced, it has become what is is today and stood on its own 2 feet with little help from other nations, especially Western nations.

[Affiltavajefe]

So what I think you are saying is that if a company wants to trade in a foreign country then it has to obey the laws of that country. The assumption here is that this is fine because there is a big market and the potential for profit. You're referring to the basic tenent of capitalism, in fact, the maximisation of profit.

So if I am a manufacuter of electric prods I should then be allowed to sell my products in any country, whatever their human rights record. Afterall, I am just an honest businessman pursuing profit. Or, as we have seen, I can give my cattle, well, other cattle to eat because the law doesn't say I can't and the practice makes beef-based agriculture more profitable. Or, I can test my drugs in Africa because there are no laws restricting this.

In this model actions do not have any consequences, other than what can be measured in monetary terms. But we know that there are intangible consequences - the choice is whether we choose to value them or not. So I believe that by saying 'Google is justified in delivering a censored search engine to China' you are condoning any business deal that puts profit before human values.

[phernikas]

Sorry dude, though I can't say I'm an expert on China, these aren't the dark ages. Bourgouise aren't being pulled out in front of all the villagers to be ridiculed any more. Also,this is an information systems company, not a Nuclear Waste disposal company or fashion lable looking for cheap labour. Google are hurting no one with their Chinese censorship policy and providing their usual service. Knowing those two facts, the good outweighs the bad and moral creaminess is acheived.

Also, how exactly do you think this whole freedom of speech thing is going to get to china without people like google and wikipedia taking an interest in Chinese affairs?

Thats not to mention the fact that it's really none of our business. People go on about being open-minded to other value hierarchies and values in general but as soon as a cultural difference like this comes up it's all 'urra marine corps' go democracy and free speech, arrr, die commies.

[sallythetolly]

Censorship in any form is immoral

That's an intersting statement.

Is it wrong to censor porn sites that show young children?

Under those circumstances, I'd say it was immoral NOT to censor it...

When speaking of sensorship, one needs to be very careful that one does not generalise.

Problem is, as soon as you allow any senorship, someone has to decide what is right to sensor and what is wrong.

All comes down to definitions of moral and ethic. Do these definations change between countries, between religions, with time?

Do you have the right to impose your morals and ethics on another culture.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating censorship for sensorships sake, I believe the Chinese government controls the information it allows its general population access in a draconian and totaliatrian fasion, and to a certain extent condem corporations such as Google and Microsoft for their complicity, but there is precedent.

My understanding is that in Germany, Google sensors searches on the haulocost and on neo-nazis, based on government requirement...

Just some thoughts and personal opinions.