Hacker News Reader

Comment by Karunamon | Hacker News Reader

No, but when it comes down to "Censor stuff when asked" or "Don't bother setting up shop at all", any rational person would take option #1.

So let's see, you're Google, and you want to set up your search engine in China.

"Not so fast" says the local big cheeses. "You have to censor search results in compliance with laws X Y and Z. If you do not, your employees will be jailed and you will be shut down."

As a Chinese citizen, which is the best result?

Let's do a very simple payoff matrix.

Outcome A: Google avoids China altogether

Outcome B: Google opens in China and complies with the law

Outcome C: Google opens in China and does not comply with the law

      Google     Chinese Citizen
 A      0               0
 B      1               1
 C      -1              0

Only option B leaves all parties better than they started out.

View on HN

I see your point, but it's a little simplistic. By opening and complying with the law you are to a certain extent validating or condoning that law. By agreeing to abide by China's rules Google to some extent takes pressure off the Chinese government.

>By agreeing to abide by China's rules Google to some extent takes pressure off the Chinese government.

How do you figure that? A search engine company in the united states probably isn't in the best position to be dictating foreign policy. Any "pressure" they could exert (on China, especially) by saying "We're staying away due to your crappy laws" is minimal at best.

Besides, they already left due to (ostensibly) government agents trying to hack into their systems.

But in actuality Google decided B was a mistake, and has switched to A: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/mar/23/google-chin...

Yes, but it is worse off because of it.

Also it was already getting trounced by competition (Baidu).

Google in china was like Bing is in the west. The search engine you know, but never use. :P

Actually Google decided A was a mistake, and has switched to C: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-24/google-china-busine...

It's not really fair to say "any rational person would take option #1," as a rational person could also make the decision that they'd rather not be party to supporting censorship.

Option D: Google opens their Chinese office outside of PRC, and embraces circumvention technology.

This is the Internet, you don't have to open a physical office in every market. Censoring services for the whims of every government just dilutes your brand.

This is a corporation. For one, it's incredibly inefficient to set up infrastructure outside of where you're operating. For two, how hard do you think it would be for the great firewall to just block whatever IP's they operate from?

Google.cn being accessible from tor might be a neat idea in theory, but it's infeasible (and just a little bit silly) from a real world perspective where you have to account for your cash and actions.

Gosh, I would have written

      Google         Freedom
 A      0               1
 B      1               -1
 C      -1              1

How does a new search engine complying with existing laws impact "freedom" (a nebulous concept) in any meaningful way?

Because US propaganda has got it into peoples heads that "Free-Speech"* = "Freedom"+

Glasshouses, stones, kettles and pots are all coming to mind :P

* Where free speech, is "Free" by US law. And not anything that is critical of the US govt institution (ala Bradley Manning)

+ Where freedom is the same brand of Freedom™ that the US promotes/enjoys(?)

> And not anything that is critical of the US govt institution (ala Bradley Manning)

Pretty sure free speech does not, has not, and never has or will apply to military secrets that one takes an oath to keep when they join the military.

Let's get one thing straight. Manning is a hero in my book.. but there is no question what so ever that he broke the law (and his oath). The debate comes in to what we do with him because of what he did.

Thats my point... you have a special brand of "free speech". That has caveats on the free part.

If you don't like the bradley manning example, then just move further up the chain to Wikileaks. The point is still valid. It isn't Free Speech, is just 'mostly' free unless you impinge on a more powerful interest... oh wait, that isn't free.

It sounds like you're pointing to a definition of "free" that doesn't include exceptions for incitement, classified information, etc.

It's a nice principal, but unworkable in the real world.

> It's a nice principal, but unworkable in the real world.

Reference? Why is it unworkable?

You somehow expect a world without any secrets of any kind to function?

You somehow expect a world where governments lie to it's own people to function?

(Not only that, you seem to accept that governments lying is fine, but exposing those lies is a violation of free speech...???)

How does equating rationality with profit-maximization further this discussion in any meaningful way?

Because in this case, they're one in the same?

That is indeed a very simple matrix.

Outcome A': Google avoids China altogether, keeping the pressure on Chinese authorities, which may, on the long term, contribute to relax Chinese censorship laws and bolster freedom in that country. Chinese Citizen: 100.

I think you greatly overestimate the amount of "pressure" a single company can exert on China, of all places.

I can't hardly overestimate something I didn't make an estimation of.

Oh FFS.

>Outcome A': Google avoids China altogether, keeping the pressure on Chinese authorities, which may, on the long term

You did type this, yes?

Yes. Where is the amount, extent, position, size, or value of the pressure exerted on China, that I estimated too highly?

The fact that there is any pressure whatsoever. Of all the countries in the world, China is the most able (from an economic and political standpoint) to tell a western company to take their service and shove it.

That's a very shallow view of how the non-autarkic part of the world (to which China certainly belongs) works, China's recent history and the influence of the "cocacolonization" effect. Stating it exerts no pressure whatsoever is an extraordinary claim.

It would've helped if Google convinced other companies to join them if they don't lower their censorship requests.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com