Today The Information reports that Google is making plans to get a version of Google Play back into China and that it’s willing to work within Chinese censorship law to do it. The company “will follow local laws and block apps that the government deems objectionable” in the interest of regaining control over its own operating system. Google also wants to help Chinese developers distribute their apps outside of China and help international developers sell their apps within China.
Everything’s for sale.
Thom, you’re making the same mistake a lot of people seem to. Corporations do not have scruples, only interests. They aren’t much different than national governments. If it’s in Google’s interest to bow to a censorious regime’s laws to get business in the PRC (or insert other repressive government’s regime) they will do so, and shake hands all the while smiling for the cameras saying how much a good deal it is for their stockholders.
Where is the bad thing in the quoted sentence? As long as they don’t do something illegal or hurting people? They are a corporation intending to sell products and services. Not a not-for-profit trying to change the world.
And as I said, the only one who got hurt by this was Google. Not China.
It was a big big mistake on Google’s part to leave China over a momentary spat, and an even bigger mistake on Eric Schmidt’s part to wave the “morals” flag while doing so, proclaiming that Google leaving China was the “morally correct thing to do” to everyone, essentially making it “immoral” to open for business again in China, and hence closing any window for re-opening in China for years.
Edited 2015-09-07 23:23 UTC
What if this would be a country where pornography is illegal? And after a few months the government demands to get the registration information of all Google accounts that visited websites that are on the governments “no go porn list”?
Now wait a minute, China basically has such a policy and Google is saying that they will obey the local laws.
Of course I don’t expect something like that to really happen, but when countries have different laws, morals and values there will be conflicts that might not be surmountable.
(Now what if it was a country where being gay is punishable by death? Or where women cannot divorce? Or where a database hack of any hookup-site is going to put lives in danger? What if Google would have to give up all the information they have by law?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Tao#Yahoo.21.27s_role I’d say helping to lock up people who disagree with the government is hurting people. I’d also say that government led censorship is also hurting people.
Doing the right thing and having good reputation are economic values too. Interests and scruples can be compatible (and profitable) if you are smart enough.
In fact, Google “don’t be evil” mantra was very successful, it differentiated Google from the rest and created a powerful image.
They are ruining it though.
Edited 2015-09-08 08:47 UTC
No they aren’t. They are branding attributes, and that worked for Google. But capitalism rewards those who make the most money – it doesn’t care how you did it. And it’s a competition, which means as soon as a competitor is doing some deplorable thing to get an advantage, your right things and reputation can’t stand up, or you are out of business. It’s the system.
Thom is complaining about things are essential to capitalism. It sound like the problem is more with capitalism – the game – rather than people/corporations – the players. If you really want to change this deplorable behavior – and I agree that it is – you need a different system. Capitalism can’t solve this problem.
If your values as a corporation block you from 1 billion customers who want to have access to your product, then your values should change (Windows Phones have not become a hit in China as far as I know, and iPhones are for those who can afford it, and I bet Android users in China would love to have access to the real Play instead of Alibaba or whatever).
And I never understood the point of Google leaving China. They fought against censorship (which blocks access to some of their Google Search content) by removing all Google Search content.
And anyway, it was a dumb dumb move from the start to leave China over what was essentially a nerd protest on Eric Schmidt’s part. He looked like that guy who refuses to use Facebook (or even LinkedIn) and doesn’t view DRMed content, thinking he is changing the world but only manages to miss out on things others have. Small wonder Eric Schmidt got kicked from the CEO position soon afterwards. And I am surprised Google didn’t rectify the problem sooner.
Edited 2015-09-07 23:22 UTC
You can’t miss out on things you haven’t experienced (or didn’t care for the experience). You make it seem as if there’s this set of things that people all have to have for a fulfilled life. Your life seems quite sad.
Edited 2015-09-08 00:08 UTC
Of course you can, that is actually the definition of “missing out”. Your sentence is like “you can’t miss a ball you haven’t hit”.
And without going into politics too much: Hong Kong really isn’t China. I don’t need a Visa to get into Hong Kong, but I do need a Visa to get into China. And most Chinese people need a Visa to get into Hong Kong.
That wasn’t the point the person I was replying to was trying to make. The person was trying to make the point that Google pulling out of China to avoid censorship was an even greater act of censorship. But the fact that it was available to people who can READ Chinese if they can get through the firewall into Hong Kong, which quite a large number of people in China can and has done.
But people DID want to use Google. They had 36.7% of the market with only 1.7% now. That means a lot of people are missing out.
Even someone that is saying “I am not using Google because I distrust them because of privacy issues” could be considered “missing out” because he is implying that without the privacy issues he would like to use Google. Why not say “I don’t want to use Google” otherwise?
And what kind of logic is “people can get through the firewall if they do XYZ so there is no censorship”. The fact that many people cannot do that and others have to perform a hack (however easy) means it actually hindered many people from accessing the service
Edited 2015-09-08 11:08 UTC
Did you even read what I was REPLYING to?
Yes, that is why I added ‘Even someone that is saying “I am not using Google because I distrust them because of privacy issues” could be considered “missing out” because he is implying that without the privacy issues he would like to use Google. Why not say “I don’t want to use Google” otherwise? ‘
Your response only literally matches with what kurkosdr wrote, not with what he was conveying.
Which had nothing to do with anything I said in response to what he said.
I already addressed all your latest remarks in my previous comment. You are too much fixated on the literal words in a text and don’t understand what people are really saying.
When he wrote
he didn’t mean they erased any data. He meant that previously Chinese users of Google had access to most of Google and later to none, while giving “we don’t want Chinese users to be limited in their access” as the reason.
Your response “but a nont insignificant amount of people could access it through HongKong” is entirely besides the point.
Now I leave it up to you to think what he wanted to convey with the “non FaceBook user” story.
Hint: He wasn’t limiting that story to 1 user.
Says the person who tries to fixate on my literal words and completely fail to address my actual points by bringing up complete non-sequiturs.
To be fair, I refuse to use Facebook or consume DRMed content primarily because it’s too much bother and stress to constantly weigh the pros and cons of my actions.
On the DRM-free front, I have more legally purchased content than I have time to consume and I’m content in the knowledge that my descendants will be able to inherit it, even if the vendors go out of business.
Edited 2015-09-08 00:23 UTC
A corporation doesn’t have values. It is defined by it’s actions which can change at any time. Google is accepting censorship and that speaks for itself. Do no evil? Any corporation can be taken over, change leadership, go awol on us humans. Who invented these things anyways? Why?
I remember when EVERYONE said Apple was a bunch of sell outs for doing business in China and Google was above that. They had morals blah, blah, blah.
Bunch of horse pucky!
Now reality sets in. You have to play the game to make the money.
That free Android with no Google Play store was biting them in the booty.
Time to play catch up.
We get censorship here in America as well, perhaps not directly by the government, but by the corporations who at this point rule the world both financially and via influence. They are the predominant culture and so called counter culture at this point, two sides to the same sword with the same end.
How often do you not see media sites or Youtube remove videos that shed light on certain aspects of history and present reality that they just don’t want people thinking about or talking about. Ironically most of this comes from “liberal” groups which in my book, is quite the opposite of liberating, but is rather suffocating.
He who controls the material wealth and the information, controls perception and pulls our strings…
…that is if we are still trained to desire the piece of meet/carrot that is being hung before us.
Malcom X was right, it is a Communist/Marxist conspiracy. Churchill was also right in that analogy as well as to study the works of Nesta Webster amongst others. Now a days, it is offensive to do the research or make the observations that those and others we looked up to did. And it’s certainly not favorable by the many, “liberal” or not, when you discover that some of history’s “good men/womb men” were in fact evil and had something hidden up their sleeve.
“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.â€
― Mark Twain
uhmmmm….Never?
I see plenty of conspiracy videos, government sucks videos, MI6 killed Diana videos, 911 was an inside job videos, Bill Clinton did this, Hillary Clinton did that, Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t do anything, Elvis was abducted by Scientology to disprove Mormonism (okay, maybe I am making that last one up)
When things disappear it is because of copyright, not because of content. Things with unwanted content normally don’t appear at all. I find it hard to swallow that so many government documents are still sealed after such a long time, but apparently that is the law
Of course not every conspiracy/whistle blowing video gets taken down, I mean how else to bury a needle but in a pile of needles?
That being said though, I have posted non-profit videos from churches and other sources that were flagged and removed, and they did not contain any copyright material what so ever. Though they did touch upon sensitive subjects that if you so much as utter, suddenly you hate women, gays, blacks, jews, or what ever.
Putting guilt where guilt does not deserve to be held, is one way to encourage people to self censor them selves as well as each other (peer pressure/bullying), and thus sever their ties from actual, diverse historical factoids.
Why Google obeying to the Chinese law is a bad thing and they obeying to the USA law is a good thing? After all, both are recognized as legit countries by the international community.
I think it mostly comes down to how Google were trumpeting that they’re all for human rights and freedom and all that when they pulled out of the Chinese market and now they’re doing a full 180, basically eating their own words. *shrug*
But my question stands: in a world were morality prevails, should Google have not pulled out of USA too?
From a shareholder point of view it totally legit to question why do business here but not there.
I dunno, I’m not the one raging about the topic. I’m not foolish enough to think that a publicly traded company wouldn’t be entirely willing to spin around and eat their own words any time a lucrative proposition comes around.
Is there such a world? Would Google even exist in such a world?
And of course Google is a US company so they have to obey US laws and cannot withdraw from there
and Google China is a Chinese company.
Yes, but “Google China is a subsidiary of Google.” (src: wikipedia)
So while it made sense for Google to think “should we expand to China?” and later “should we stay active in China?” the same cannot be said for Google and the US.
(without Google US the rest of Google would probably disappear soon)
And Google US is a subsidiary of Alphabet. They are an US corporation by choice.
They are most definately not a US corporation by choice. If they ever want to sell abroad they will need governmental permission for sure. Also, at least according to Wikipedia, Alphabet is not real yet and would be US based as well.
These giant companies cannot just switch countries you know?
Edited 2015-09-08 12:50 UTC
So much for “don’t be evil” I guess.
“Everything’s for sale.”
Including their principals, good timing though considering they might have to leave the European market if that beotch keeps on them
Edited 2015-09-08 22:19 UTC
Google censors so many politically sensitive Korean contents as well. Hence, Koreans don’t use Google for searching things.
Google probably realized that they’re missing out on billions of potential ad views as a result of spammers in China not having access to GMail.
And judging from Google’s “no shits given” attitude towards the torrent of Indian SEO/web dev spam sent through GMail, I’m sure Chinese spammers are currently rubbing their hands together in gleeful anticipation.