Google bows to Chinese demands
1/25/2006 12:55:55 PM, by Anders Bylund
When the news broke that Google—in contrast to MSN, Yahoo!, and AOL—refused to comply with a DOJ subpoena asking for search information, some observers applauded Google for their strict interpretation of the "don't be evil" mantra. Today, the search giant's squeaky clean image faces a serious challenge, as the company announced a revamped Chinese search site, which openly complies with Chinese government censorship.
The old, uncensored version reportedly ran slowly, allegedly due to interference from the Great Firewall of China, and many controversial queries would return URLs to pages that would never load from within China. Now, such searches will only return results approved by the Chinese government, so that a search for Tiananmen Square will only point to sites supporting the government-approved position on the events there, and there will be a short disclaimer at the bottom of the results page that translates to this:
According to the local law laws and regulations and the policy, partially searches the result does not demonstrate.
Okay, so that's the Babelfish version of the original Chinese, but the gist of the statement is clear: local laws have forced us to block some of your results. That's similar to the disclaimer you get if you search the familiar
www.google.com for "kazaa," for example:
In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
It should be clear by now that Google has already censored some results, even in the good ole US of A. Censorship of Google France and Germany are other commonly cited examples of Google limiting free speech due to local laws and regulations. Furthermore, Google News in China already removed sources offensive to the government before the launch of google.cn. So what gives? Google is putting up a fight in one case, but leaving other battles uncontested. International free speech advocates Reporters Without Borders (RWB) reacted strongly to the news:
"The launch of Google.cn is a black day for freedom of expression in China," the worldwide press freedom organisation said. "The firm defends the rights of US Internet users before the US government but fails to defend its Chinese users against theirs."
"Google's statements about respecting online privacy are the height of hypocrisy in view of its strategy in China. Like its competitors, the company says it has no choice and must obey Chinese laws, but this is a tired argument. Freedom of expression isn't a minor principle that can be pushed aside when dealing with a dictatorship. It's a principle recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and features in the Chinese national constitution itself."
Google defends its position as an attempt to change the Chinese system from within; they claim that it is better to comply with the appropriate laws and be able to provide some kind of service, giving them a platform from which they can reach the people of China, rather than to break the law and get shut down entirely.
"While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission," the company stated.
RWB's point about Google's hypocrisy looks spot on: the company is bending and twisting the language of its own mission statement in an effort to make it look like going into the Chinese market is the Right Thing To Do™, even under heavy censorship. From our vantage point here at the Orbiting HQ, it looks like an effort to justify going after the almighty Yuan before someone else starts to dominate that market. And what about the hard-line attitude to that American subpoena? According to Search Engine Watch editor Danny Sullivan, comparing that to the Chinese situation is not an apples-to-apples proposition:
[W]hat about the entire hypocrisy of not bending to US law but doing so with China. That's not the case. In the action with the Department Of Justice, Google has not disobeyed a law. US law allows people or organizations to be subpoenaed. People also have the right to argue they shouldn't be forced to be a witness in a case. Google's following the law in arguing against being forced to provide information. It's perfectly legal to do that. Ultimately, the case will be decided. Google may be ordered to hand over material. If so, it will do so—or it will face penalties under US law.
Sullivan's beef with google.cn is that he'd rather see Google stonewalling the Chinese demands until the government changes its policies and does away with censorship altogether. Now, Google may be huge, rich, and important, but there are limits to the power of a single company, no matter how huge. If the US government threatened to impose an embargo on China and force all American interests to pull out of that market, it might have an impact, but that would surely have a negative impact on the US economy as well. Can't we all just get along?
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060125-6051.html