Google's Ishtar Moment
from the warren-beatty-in-the-desert dept
It's really quite impressive how much life there is in the story about Google censoring results in China. Considering that plenty of other companies have done it for years, it seemed like the reaction was a bit out of the ordinary. However, Andy Kessler has put his finger on the problem. It's Google's big sellout moment. It goes against everything they represented -- something they're now trying to explain away with doubletalk and a quick rewrite of history. As Kessler explains (with plenty of amusing examples), it's not the censorship that's the problem -- but that Google set themselves up to be such an idyllic company that would never do such a thing. He also shows how it's possible to sellout in a way that keeps you cool -- which Google didn't do. In the meantime, it turns out that people are discovering the way to get around Google's filters is pretty much the same way that spammers get around spam filters and the way file sharers got around Napster's original filters: by misspelling words. This is curious, because one of Google's features is that it tries to infer what you really meant when you put in a misspelled word. You would think that they would be able to more easily block creatively spelled variations... So, now we can start the conspiracy theories (all bogus, of course) that Google purposely left this as a loophole.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
Yeah, but when you go public and pride yourself on the fact that you are not a whore, nor would you ever become a whore... that puts a whole new spin on things. Google became a 1st class hypocrite with this one. End of story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Search 'Falun Gong' on google.cn
then tell me Google is doing no evil.
All of the front page references are negative government propaganda pieces against Falun Gong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Search 'Falun Gong' on google.cn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Search 'Falun Gong' on google.cn
Let's be frank, Google is simply more comfortable consorting with communists than Republicans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
Er. That's the definition of a sellout, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
It's not about being "evil". It's about whether or not you follow the laws or do what you think is right. Google set up a standard of what's right for ITSELF, but then backed down in this case.
That's what people are pointing out. Not that they're following a law, but that they do not appear to have held true to their own standard, which they promoted so heavily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
Where did Google set up this standard of what's right? From all that I've seen it boils down to their motto "Don't be evil".
Going out on a limb of libertarianism here, but Obeying the laws of the land is 'right' in all cases - unless you are a citizen of that country and preaching revolution. As an American company - Google does not have the right to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
Follow the links in the original post. It includes a page that USED to be on Google's website saying why they don't censor, and how they believe that censoring is bad.
And now they censor.
They set the standard for themselves. That gave them a lot of goodwill. Then, they broke it, and deleted the page.
Going out on a limb of libertarianism here, but Obeying the laws of the land is 'right' in all cases
You honestly believe that? That's kinda scary. But, if you want to live in that kind of world, go ahead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
To a large percentage of the public, it certainly looks like they backed down. THAT is part of the definition of a sellout. When your fans think you backed down from a principle for money.
Since their page said:
"Google does not censor results for any search term... We believe strongly in allowing the democracy of the web to determine the inclusion and ranking of sites in our search results."
And now that page is gone. Uh, yeah. They backed down, and a lot of people see it that way, which is a public relations problem -- which was the point of this article. There are ways to "sell out" that don't get a lot of people upset at you.
Google didn't do that. They chose a path that many people think looks bad. That's a problem for Google, even if you think everyone is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
Sure, that is their belief and they practice it whenever it's legally possible. In most Western countries, that's exactly how it works. In China, the government limits their ability to achieve that goal. I do not see the issue.
A lot of big companies have social beliefs they try to further, yet does that mean they are able to all the time when faced with conflicting laws? Certainly not.
Starbucks is supposedly environmentally conscious, yet they are forced by the US government to clean their cooking equipment regularly, possibly wasting untold amounts of water. Should Starbucks not do business in the US because of that requirement?
Any social belief taken to the absolute extreme is neither realistic nor possible within the scope of most business ventures. To hold Google to some "ultimate non-evil" interpretation of a vague vision statement is just absurdly unrealistic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
Sure, that is their belief and they practice it whenever it's legally possible. In most Western countries, that's exactly how it works. In China, the government limits their ability to achieve that goal. I do not see the issue.
Hmm. Apparently I did a horrible job explaining the point, because everyone's focusing on the wrong thing.
I never said that Google shouldn't do what they've done. ALL I am saying is that it LOOKS BAD -- and a lot of people seem to agree. They said one thing and did another.
They positioned THEMSELVES as being about bigger issues -- which they're not obeying now in pursuit of money in a new market. It's a decision everyone has to make. And lots of people/companies do exactly what Google did: they sell out. It's pretty typical, and that doesn't make it WRONG. It's just what happens.
The problem is that when a company sells out, it disillusions a lot of people who were their loyal fans/customers.
Does this make sense? I'm not saying Google was wrong. I'm saying that they set themselves up in a certain way, and by selling out in such a way, they have upset a lot of people.
Can we separate out the "doing evil/wrong" from the *impact* of what they've done? I'm pointing to the impact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
This is a big yawner. Just some people trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I guess it's official: Google is the new punching bag for 2006. Microsoft, you are safe for now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
Again, I think you're missing the point here. Google very much made "do no evil" a corporate mantra, but we're not even discussing the "evil" thing. If you read Kessler's article he doesn't even mention "evil." The company specifically SAID THEY WOULD NOT CENSOR. And then they did. In other words, they outright lied, after getting all sorts of goodwill for saying one thing, and doing another.
That's what makes it a story. That's what makes it interesting.
Google got a lot of goodwill for saying they stood for something as a company. Now they're losing it for going against what they said. That's "selling out" and that's news. If Google hadn't set themselves up that way, then it wouldn't be such an issue. But they did, so now they're dealing with the consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Man...
So stop being so hard on them. Google isnt the bad guy here, the shitty Chinese government is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Man...
Ugh. How many times do I need to say this? We weren't saying that Google was "bad" here. Just that they upset a lot of people, by setting a standard that they didn't live up to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Man...
Google: "Get your jackboot of oppression off me, Uncle Sam. The right of our customers to search for porn might be chilled by your requesting such data."
Chinese Communist Dictatorship: "Can you guys censor all web pages at odds with the maintenance of our dictatorship?"
Google: "No problem comrades."
Question: By the way, how do Chinese peasants "misspell" Chinese characters to slyly avoid Google's political filter? I guess they will all search in misspelled English?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh give me a break
no search engine is what it seems. looks like worms have corporate sponsorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slow Tech News Day Alert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Yes, Google.cn filters results, but somehow Google negotiated a deal with the Chinese government so that they can tell users WHY their results were filtered.
If google hadn't done this, Chinese users would simply never know why they got no results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, give it a rest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Does anyone remember the big drama between Microsoft and Google when Google hired some guy to head up the Chinese search engine and Microsoft was pissed because he was a former employee?
...wasn't this the first hint that Google was on their way to China?
"When in Rome..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google.com
And they should be aware that their results are filtered, thanks to the little warning message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Tiananmen
Ironically, there was a slashdot article this morning about how filters could be bypassed by misspelling words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Choose the lesser of 2 evils...
B) Google doesnt make a deal with the Chinese, resulting in less western exposure for the people of China.
Who gives a crap if they censor results (mind you they are doing much less censoring/filtering than the Chinese govt is) - since when is it evil to comply with the law - it doesnt matter if its US law that you hate or foreign law that you also hate, it has to be done to stay in business. What Google meant by the "Do no evil" mantra is that they wont become M$ and milk you for all the money you're worth, then leave you with a crapload of bugs and security flaws AND a few hundred bucks poorer from buying crappy office software - the way that you wake up in the middle of the night to find out that you were dumb enough to bring your wallet and all your credit cards for that hooker to lift offa you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ain't it great
Unfortunately, this means that you get to be the target of everyone who thinks that their old way was better, and they get very vocal about it. I've heard loud and harsh criticism for everything from Gmail to Google maps to the scripts in Google Labs.
It's a choice! No-one is forcing anyone to use any of these products, if you dont like them, don't use them, your choice. This is a case where Google is complying with local laws. I know its a hard hard to comprehend but thats what makes America what it is, we have the freedom to not have our information censored like that.
I agree with DKW, why is it evil to follow the laws. Its expanding their market and letting the Chinese use quicker, albeit incomplete search information. Is that selling out? Thats not for me to say. But how many of you complainers have had to do something you didn't particularly like to keep your job? Sell-outs!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ain't it great
Again, no one is denying that.
What people are saying is they're upset that Google SET THEMSELVES UP as a great defender of openness and against censorship... and then backed down.
The complaint is that they got a lot of goodwill out of saying one thing, but then did another.
why is it evil to follow the laws.
It's not necessarily "evil." However, it IS selling out. They said one thing that got them a lot of attention and good will, and then did another in the interest of making money. That's selling out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe they didn't put a lot of effort into it?
That said, yes, I am a bit disappointed in Google, and they may have started their fall, but they are still head and shoulders above companies such as MS and Yahoo in integrity. How long will that last? It's really up to Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
If you don't understand, you weren't meant to. Move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Censorship Viewer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
While the DMCA censoring done in the US might be argued to be less odious, it is only a few degrees difference, and represents a standing policy of obeying the censorship laws of the nations it does business in.
Take your pick, Google has either sold out to the censors long ago, or is still trying to do the best that they can in hard situations. Either way simply adding China to the list does not make this news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Community
However, public company or not Google had best watch itself. For it is the community that gave Google its power, and it is that very same community that can take it away in a snap. Google is not the only search engine on the block. Any company that gets too big for its britches is a prime target for an exercise in humility.
Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Perhaps Google has yet to learn that simple lesson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm disappointed....
Techdirt usually does a rather good job of being cynical of the mass media, but this time they somehow managed to trumpet what every other blog is posting.
What this headline should have been pointing out is that Google is a business. Asking Google to ignore doing business with one of the largest countries in the world - based solely on a strictly American moral standard - is rediculous. It isn't Google's mission to change China into a democracy. They're a business. Business goals dictate expansion and revenue rather than spreading moral values. That's reality.
If you want to change China, call up George W. and see if he's interested in trying to make them change...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm disappointed....
Nowhere do we deny that Google is a business and they made a choice to move into the Chinese market.
What we are saying is that they should have EXPECTED this response because they built up their own reputation, which they now went against.
Is it really that hard to understand the distinction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the truth about search engines starts here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forsaking Your Principles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
medical malpractice overview
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
perineal mesothelioma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://tls-security.blogspot.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ivr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]