Larry Page (or, Eric Schmidt?) made a similar comment, before Google closed China office after Chinese officials were found to be monitoring dissidents through their internal tools, that censored Google is better than no Google.
For the record, I agreed with Google that a censored Google was better than no Google, and one of my biggest frustrations at the time was that sanctimonious Americans seemed to think they knew better than me, someone who would actually lose access to Google if they pulled out of China.
Google would tell me if search results were censored, and wouldn't shut down my internet for a few hours if I accidentally typed the wrong thing, which was much much better than anything else I had access to.
Then Google did pull out of China and it did suck and meanwhile Americans celebrated it because it didn't affect them at all. Ugh.
> after Chinese officials were found to be monitoring dissidents through their internal tools
Google pulled out of China because Gmail got hacked and Google assumed the hackers were affiliated with the Chinese government. I think the evidence pointed in that direction but wasn't conclusive, but either way, I haven't heard anything about monitoring dissidents through internal tools.
Anyway, I feel the same way about Facebook. It'd be nice to be able to access Facebook and talk to my friends while in China, and having censored communication is better than nothing.
that is actually happening?
I haven't had that experience more recently, but I think that's partially because HTTPS is everywhere these days and partially because I use VPNs a lot more because I do need that Google/Facebook access.
It doesn't really happen very much anymore, but mainly because most sites moved to https and can only be blocked completely ATM.
What other highly skilled state sponsored attackers would break into Google China to steal information about people the Chinese government deemed dissidents?
Then it seems pulling out was the right move. If Chinese citizens trusted that Google could secure their communications, and Google was then unable to, that put certain citizens at risk of persecution. Better to have them using a Chinese email provider where the default assumption is that everything is monitored, and then use the proper tools for actual private communication.
I don't think American companies have morally good reason to be complicit in Chinese censorship, but I understand why they play along, even if I personally don't agree.
Ignoring the whole hacking incident, does Google pulling out of China actually improve the world in some way?
I think "giving customers as much of what they want as possible" is a morally good reason. On the other hand, I don't see any morally good reason for them to pull out of China, other than holier-than-thou moralizing?
It's like how Google shuts down every other product - it's not making profit.
I'd guess that withdrawing from China was a net loser for Google overall, but in my case it strengthened my brand loyalty to Google.
It wasn't really a net loss given what we know today about China's protective policies.
They made a reasonable call. It was said that Sergey Brin's first hand experience with oppressive authoritarian governments played a major role in their decision.
Devil's advocate: how is that a material improvement besides making some people feel good? China wins (homegrown brands like Baidu), Google loses a market, Chinese Google users lose a search engine.
China can block all the websites they want, the damage they do to their local internet industry is probably irreversible: they are unable to compete in even next door markets like Myanmar and Cambodia! On the one hand, they block the big western internet companies out of china, on the other hand, they give up the rest of the world. From the west's perspective, it is a reasonable tradeoff.
Google IS mobile, even in China, Android is a big thing. I heard they want back in mobile; e.g. Android Play Store, they don't care about search in China, it isn't where the future is for that market anyways.
I'll need you to explain that to me slowly, because I can't wrap my head around your reasoning. Blocking foreign websites is the best thing China did for its internet industry: Blocking Twitter helps Weibo, Google exiting helped Baidu, and so on. Not having to compete with western companies on home turf can hardly be called "damage".
> From the west's perspective, it is a reasonable tradeoff.
A lot of western companies have effectively saturated the market in the west, the only room left to grow is in China, and so they pander.
> A lot of western companies have effectively saturated the market in the west, the only room left to grow is in China, and so they pander.
That isn't true! They are eating the rest of Asia as we speak. Myanmar just opened up, and already Google/Facebook dominate its market. Not a WeChat to be seen. They are completely winning the east that isn't China. The same will happen in Africa when it gets to that point. Chinese Internet companies simply cannot compete outside of their home market without competitive pressure.
China is only 1.3 billion people out of a world of 7 billion. That China currently says our 1.3 billion are off limits is fine as they basically forgo 5.7.
Thanks very much for sharing your perspective.
My concern is that -- if we don't draw the line somewhere -- the U.S. will (continue to) become more like China in this regard, over time. A state of affairs which I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg will be perfectly willing to accomodate, and work with.
But even that went against Google's ethics, so rather than comply with the censorship regime, they withdrew from the market.
Will Facebook prominently disclose when posts are censored?