Do you... uh, Google.cn?

[most_precious_blood]

I can't believe this... and yet, it's so American.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11012756/

Doesn't that defeat the primary purpose of the internet?

Does this strike anyone else as just as stupid as renaming a town after a company? (Alternately, the IBM stellarsphere, planet starbucks.)

I mean the real purpose, the sharing of information; not the purpose everyone thinks of immediately, which is to make money. (Or, if you're a troll... porn.)

But hey, another company compromising that ideal won't hurt much.
Unless, of course, you happen to be a Chinese journalist.

Info == f3? l0lz, !

America is so happy to have any kind of relation to china, that we allow ourselves to get taken, further reinforcing their stereotypes of americans.

Companies have proven no different.

Yahoo! is a good example of that, so is the barebones service package google plans to offer.

-Gid

 

[jpariury]

Personally, I don't see the big deal. They're complying with the law of a sovereign nation for facilities operated in that territory. Should German businesses with operations in the US be held to the standards of German laws, or US laws? This seems like a lot of "Oooo, they're not like us, they must be evil!" to me.

Do I disagree with the information policy of that nation? Sure. Do I disagree enough to go there and overthrow their government? Not as much.

 

[most_precious_blood]

cn

My issue with google complying with china's laws has nothing to do with xenophobia.

My issue is that the internet is now going to be used to more efficiently kill people.

The Ban in Germany on Nazi-related items was not a decision made by germany, and isn't the same.

There is a difference between reparations and free enterprise.

I absolutely heart china. I cannot tolerate the methods they enforce civil obedience and classified state evidence policies with.

I think this will only help them to that end.

-Gid

 

[jpariury]

My issue is that the internet is now going to be used to more efficiently kill people.

Not seeing how that would happen based on what you've presented. Can you cite any evidence? I can offer a counter-arguement to the thought, though:

McLaughlin said the company wouldn?t host its e-mail or blogging services in China that can be mined for information about users, and would inform users if information had been deleted from searches.

So, Google apparently isn't diming on people who perform searches for "verbotten" information. They're not even blocking access to their .com site. All they are doing is keeping the .cn site compliant with Chinese law.

Essentially, they have three options:
1 - Don't create a .cn site This would result in what already exists: having the .com site be hampered with on the user-end, or having the .com completely blocked to begin with.
2 - Create a .cn site that is not compliant with local laws Legal issues abound, and the Chinese government would simply do what they do to the .com site, see #1 above.
3 - Create a .cn site that is compliant with local laws Users are informed when results have been excluded, and other information is easier to get to.

The Ban in Germany on Nazi-related items was not a decision made by germany, and isn't the same.

Strawman arguement. I did not bring up anything about such a ban. Will you now mention that phish ice cream has no bones? Its just as true, and has just as little to do with my statements.

My point is that there is no inherent evil in adhering to the laws of the country in which you are doing business, and it is, in fact, expected.

There is a difference between reparations and free enterprise.

There is also a difference between what I'm talking about, and what you're mentioning.

I absolutely heart china. I cannot tolerate the methods they enforce civil obedience and classified state evidence policies with.

Apparently you can, because you don't seem to actually be doing anything to change it. Stomping your foot and pouting doesn't produce change. Action does.

 

[most_precious_blood]

I hate it when this happens.

"Not seeing how that would happen based on what you've presented. Can you cite any evidence?"

Yes. Did you read the article, or just scan it for brief quotes to attempt to counter my questions and statements? Some of the evidence you seek is in the very article.

"I did not bring up anything about such a ban. Will you now mention that phish ice cream has no bones? Its just as true, and has just as little to do with my statements."

Yes, you did, whether you realized it or not. It could be because you don't understand any of the surrounding story, or the times in the past that this exact set of circumstances has happened.

"Should German businesses with operations in the US be held to the standards of German laws, or US laws?"

They are being held to International law in that case. They are still not allowed to create, store, or display Nazi paraphenalia (physically or electronically). In theory, if they do this, the U.N. will write them a very strongly worded letter. Your question is an important part of the topic we were involved in.

"My point is that there is no inherent evil in adhering to the laws of the country in which you are doing business, and it is, in fact, expected."

You do understand evil is subjective, I hope.

I don't think you're saying there was nothing inherently evil in Germany using IBM to catalogue and cardfile the Jews to their doom, but the common excuse of "just following orders" doesn't fly; they were not expected to engineer genocide, that was a choice made to "adhere to law".

The Nazis in question expected it would play out that way.

"Apparently you can, because you don't seem to actually be doing anything to change it. Stomping your foot and pouting doesn't produce change. Action does."

You have no idea what I have done to affect change, or my involvement with China, its people, and their government. It started at the age of 12, and I have done more than I could list here.

Contextually referring to me as acting like a child, when you have no idea what you're talking about doesn't face your best side front. It actually just looks like pointless mudslinging.

If you'd care to respond, go right ahead, but you'll have to wait some time for my response.

I'd rather not have this kind of argument publicly for a number of reasons; first of which is that you've now *truly* insulted me, and I have to try far too hard to not slip up and say what I really feel in a public forum.

If it's any consolation, my day just started, and I already feel like killing someone.

-Gid
So done.

 

[jpariury]

Yes. Did you read the article, or just scan it for brief quotes to attempt to counter my questions and statements? Some of the evidence you seek is in the very article.

Read it, four times now. Rather than resort to this dodgy "It's there, just look" tactic, why not just quote the parts that support your point? How does preventing people from being aware of sites that the Chinese government forbids access to make it easier for them to kill people?

They are being held to International law in that case.

Groovy like a movie. It doesn't answer the question posed. Let me get more specific, since you're apparently talking about something I wasn't. Do you feel, for instance, that a German company with an office in America should be held accountable to US employment laws, or German employment laws? Whose laws hold precedence, in your opinion? If the German thing keeps throwing you, feel free to substitute Canada, Iraq, France, Australia, South Africa, or any other conutry it takes for you to answer the question posed, rather than charging at windmills.

You do understand evil is subjective, I hope.

True. And telling people that there is stuff they can't look at while in my house is certainly not evil (given that we've been discussing my opinion, one would suspect my view of evil is the pertinent one).

I don't think you're saying there was nothing inherently evil in Germany using IBM to catalogue and cardfile the Jews to their doom

Depends which part you're talking about. It doesn't matter if they used IBM punchcards absconded from the Dehomag facilities the Nazis took control of or index cards. The act was one I disagree with, not the method or company used. And, as I ended my original post, if I could not tolerate it, I would have signed up and done something about it, rather than take potshots from miles of water away.

You have no idea what I have done to affect change, or my involvement with China, its people, and their government. It started at the age of 12, and I have done more than I could list here.

And yet you continue to find time playing make-believe with the rest of us kids. You will forgive me for remaining skeptical.

I'd rather not have this kind of argument publicly for a number of reasons; first of which is that you've now *truly* insulted me, and I have to try far too hard to not slip up and say what I really feel in a public forum.

Then let's stick to the merits of the discussion and situation, instead of hyperbolizing our feelings on the matter.

 

[jpariury]

I suppose the only I would add is that if you are not willing to discuss opinions contrary to your own in a public forum, don't offer them, and if you really must, don't respond when someone actually has the gall to disagree.

 

[Tom]

I mean the real purpose, the sharing of information; not the purpose everyone thinks of immediately, which is to make money. (Or, if you're a troll... porn.)

Wait! What? Troll porn?

(shudders)

And I thought google was doing so well, refusing to violate their own privacy agreement when the government demanded protected information. Ahh, well, nobody is totally good.

 

[jpariury]

And I thought google was doing so well, refusing to violate their own privacy agreement when the government demanded protected information.

And to date, they continue to maintain that policy, both locally and abroad. I have yet to see any of the "evil" that has been hinted at.

Having actually run some test searches of my own on the .cn site, I don't see that information is being filtered out nearly so hinderingly as the Chinese government is accused of wanting. While I do agree that only about a quarter to half as many sites appear (12,800,000 to 44,900,000 for "free speech", quotes included), the more obvious informational ones (freespech.org and aclu.org, in this instance) continue to appear in the results.

I'm still not understand the fearmongering.