The news of Google's capitulation has disgusted communicators so much in the UK that the BBC actually led with the story on this evening's news - the first time that a search engine has knocked flesh and blood political hypocrites off the front page.

OK, so we know that Yahoo and the other Google wannabees have already cowered to the power of Hu Jintao, and his promises of new market riches. But Google could have afforded to hold back a bit longer - and forced an international law case on censorship. But it seems that they want to orser the tasty dishes of capitalism without that side order of free expression.

Let's just hope that as satellite TV did for the Berlin Wall, the web will do for this shameful Chinese Firewall. And when it comes tumbling down, Google is going to look morally bankrupt.

Perhaps their Mission Statement really meant "Do no evil to the stock price.."

>>>>Perhaps their Mission Statement really meant "Do no evil to the stock price.." <<<<

I love you, Marc. You said it much better than I ever could have.

Hey, are you from the UK? I might be heading over there this year to do the Master Class seminar with Ragan. If you're from there, we should have a drinkfest at one of your pubs.

And if you're not from the UK, you should GO to the UK with me, to take the seminar, and THEN we could have a drinkfest at one of THEIR pubs.

Steve C.

Uh, actually their stock price has been going down all day.

When you come over Steve, the first pint is on me.

Not that I agree with what Google did (I don't), but to play devil's advocate for a moment, why is it Google's responsibility to push free speech and freedom of expression in China? And why are we holding Google to higher standards than Yahoo et al? Google is hardly the only corporation (or government for that matter) willing to turn a blind eye to the social injustices of China in a mad scramble to grab a slice of what will soon be the world's most powerful economy.

Jim:

Of course you're right.

After I fired off that post (and I'm sorry for the profanity; I heard the NPR report while I was in the shower, and had to stand there for 10 minutes and listen to these insufferable Google people talk and talk and talk about how they AGONIZED over this decision . . . and I lost my mind for a minute) I realized that it may not be fair to single out Google.

It's just that while other companies (Yahoo excluded) may turn a blind eye to the atrocities in China in order to make a buck, they're not actively involved in the charade.

It seems to me that by actively stripping out information from the Internet, and by not only allowing but HELPING the Chinese government to determine what Chinese people see and hear, Google IS actively involved.

It's not Coca Cola's job to talk about Tibet. It's not Intel's job to talk about poverty in China.

It's not Google's job to talk about those things either, I realize, but they are in the information business. It IS their job to allow people to access information on the Internet . . . and if they are closing certain doors and helping China polish the piece of shit that is Hu Jintao, it seems to me they are more actively involved in the situation than a company that is merely doing business over there.

Steve C.

Good points, the both o' youse. This is interesting.

Still stuck on the visual of "big, hairless ass," however...

Meredith:

Sorry about that. In this era when the whole concept of torture is being widely criticized, I shouldn't be putting that image in anybody's head. It's cruel and unusual in every sense of the words.

Steve C.

Steve -

Another interesting thing to note is this: they do the same thing in Germany and France. France is actually worse than China, really. They block more than they allow. The French press won't even let Google link to ITS OWN newspapers.

In my head, Google sold out. It's bullshit and it's communism and to me, yes, it's different because it's China.

It makes me glad to live in a country where I don't have to worry about this. Their just going to track my sites to use against me later. ;)

Google has shareholders now...it's a different ballgame than it was when it was a couple of guys starting the most streamlined search engine ever. (and the best email and gtalk and google earth RAWK)

The argument that "everyone else is doing it" doesn't hold water for me, but they have set precedent by following national laws in other countries.

Perhaps google has its own definition of evil, therefore they did not violate their motto of 'do no evil.' You know, kinda like good old Bill had his own definition of ‘sexual relations.’

And, worse than just blocking certain content, if you use google.cn to look up information on things the government doesn’t like, they insert their own propaganda as links. As noted in the Toronto Star newspaper:

“Within minutes of the launch of the new site bearing China's Web suffix ".cn," searches for the banned Falun Dafa spiritual movement showed scores of sites omitted and users directed to articles condemning the group posted on Chinese government websites.”

I guess the sense of humour google once had (e.g. type in failure and look at the top two results) has been consumed – like most companies – by a sense of greed. Unfortunately, ‘tis the way of the world.

"It's not Google's job to talk about those things either, I realize, but they are in the information business. It IS their job to allow people to access information on the Internet . . . and if they are closing certain doors and helping China polish the piece of shit that is Hu Jintao, it seems to me they are more actively involved in the situation than a company that is merely doing business over there."

Steve, fair enough, although I would argue that Google is actually in the advertising business, and simply uses information to drive their advertising sales. Google's products are all about slipping in those "Sponsored Links" and other ads into everything.

"The argument that "everyone else is doing it" doesn't hold water for me..."

Rebecca, my argument wasn't that Google should be excused because everyone else is doing it, but rather that we should be equally condemning all corporations doing this sort of thing.

Boy, the more you look into this, the sadder you get. According to columnist Clarence Page, it turns out Yahoo recently cooperated with a Chinese government request to reveal the name of an anonymous Yahoo e-mail user.

"The user turned out to be journalist Shi Tao, and he was sentenced to 10 years in prison for the alleged offense of reporting in 2004 the government's media restrictions during the 15th anniversary of the crackdown at Tiananmen Square," Page writes.

Yahoo's role was revealed in a leaked copy of the verdict, he says.

Meanwhile, Microsoft actually closed down the blog of a popular Beijing blogger who was using the company's MSN Spaces site, because the Chinese government told it to.

It's all so depressing. I need a martini.

Steve C.

Maybe this will cheer you up: less than three weeks to go until pitchers and catchers report!

And think about what they (and other governments/businesses) do that we DON'T learn about.

It's all propaganda and illusions.

In fact, the sheer mention of these topics has probably alerted untold number of government agencies to keep an electronic eye on this blog.

I'm glad to read Rebecca mention the reality in other countries. The United Arab Emirates also has a national firewall which is easily controlled since the government-run telecom company, Etisilat, is the monopolistic internet provider over there. I can't say that I tested Google.ae when I was working in Dubai, but I wouldn't be surprised if it also complies with the firewall filtering of any "illicit behaviour" as well as the overall media restriction on saying anything negative about the ruling families who govern a country that announced a few months ago the possibility of the first ever democratic election of (minor) government officials. (I hope my comment doesn't get your blog banned in the UAE by Etisalat!)

First, I'm not afraid of the government sniffing around this blog. I just don't want AA or Peta to start paying attention.

Ronald, you're the second person in past month whom I've met who has worked in Dubai. The husband of a client was over there helping run the Dubai Film Festival. He had some good stories. I bet you do, too. What were you doing over there? Something communication-related?

Steve C.

Hey, what a coincidence! I'm also the husband of a client of yours...

Well . . . are you the husband of a CANADIAN client of mine? Who was nice enough to drive me to the airport in Toronto?

Or are you an entirely different husband altogether?

Some of my best friends are the husbands of clients, you know.

And some of my best clients are the husbands of friends, too.

Steve C.

Same husband. So that means you've still only met one person in the last month who has worked in Dubai.

By the way, are all your clients female? Or have you just not made friends with any wives of clients?

Hey - What's wrong with PETA?

RonaldP:

Damn . . . I wanted to say I knew TWO people who have been in Dubai. Oh, well. Knowing you is good enough.

You know, I'm coming up to Toronto tonight and working with your wife tomorrow. Then we're going to have happy hour drinks. Maybe you can come.

Yes, all of my clients are women. That's because in the field of employee communications, there are only six men. And the other five men don't like me.

G. Warten: NOTHING is wrong with PETA!!! I love PETA!!!

Steve C.

I think it's time for a rousing game of "let's count how many people Steve can offend in one posting?" Anyone in?

Let's see, so far we have (1) those who don't like profanity, (2) Those who like PETA, (3) those deeply helped by AA, (4) a small country called China, (4) Google and (5) husbands of clients who he didn't remember already meeting. Quite a day, Steve. I think you should turn in early tonight.

Don't forget the damage caused by the "big hairless ass" image.

Thanks for playing Ronald! We're up to six!

>>NOTHING is wrong with PETA!!! I love PETA!!!<<

It's especially good when stuffed with Tangine chicken, tomatoes, onions, cilantro and cucumber sauce.

Eileen!!

I didn't forget your husband . . . I just didn't get enough time to talk to him, because you were hoarding him in Vancouver.

And I'm a big fan of AA, and plan to be very involved in it one day.

China? Screw them.

Okay, now I'll call it a day and go to Toronto on one of those little bitty AirCanada jets that will probably go down somewhere in Lake Michigan.

Steve C.

Bingo! You've now offended AirCanada and all its employees!

I am not impressed with China's record, either, but if we are going to dump on Google we had better check the labels on our clothes, small appliances, shoes, etc. If China is the new Evil Empire, you'd never know it from our imports. Make sure you also dump on all the free-enterprise entrepreneurs who are importing things from China because they are cheaper.

Google is a shareholding company. Of course what matters to them is cash. It's ridiculous to think otherwise. They can have as goody goody a mission statement as they want, but they are a for profit company. The way you operate in China is by the rules of the ruling government. If you don't play by their rules, your out, and we play by their rules, at lease we who have ever bought something at Wall-mart.
"Not doing evil" is a joke of a mission statement to begin with. It's just a marketing ploy for tweens and Xers. The only reason that's a part of their mission is because it jives with the brand they are trying to sell, which is the one most alluring to thirtysomething, Caucasian, middle/upper-class Americans, who live in the suburbs and want to feel like they are socially conscious, but who never make eye contact with the lady ringing the bell for the salvation army, and who’s most charitable act is loaning Jerry in accounting a quarter for the parking meter in front of Au Bon Pon. Moral outrage has no backbone if it is not also accompanied by the action and sacrifice of personal comfort. Until folks in the states are willing to sacrifice their double foam half caf lattes for the working rights of Columbian coffee producers, or ride bikes instead of driving to the post office so that we are less likely to go to war for oil, we don't have a lot of room for criticism of anyone's moral compass.

I know that (perhaps) all of you are from "western" so-called democracies, but apparently you wouldn't know propaganda if it came up and bit you on your own big naive white asses (just playing the odds here). Google, and everyone else in the internet search engine business today, is all about lying, channeling information, and generally misinforming readers. It's called advertising. Business. And its result is what Noam Chomsky calls "manufactured consent," where people act against their own best interests. This can be as benign as buying some consumer crap one doesn't need, or as malignant as "voting" for a criminal and fascist pretender to the presidency of the most powerful and irresponsible country on the planet. Who can blame the Chinese?

Oh, and hiya Steve.

Steve - my husband was in Dubai a few times when he was in the Navy, if that helps. He's even got the t-shirt from the camel tour to prove it. They toured the countryside on camels, they didn't actually tour the camel.

Randall - wow - who pissed in your cynical wheaties? And just because my ass is big, don't discriminate against it and say it's naive. Saying that advertising and militant political propaganda are the same thing is like saying Muslim = terrorist. You're seriously trying to tell me that you think some ad that google posts on my search results page about ebiz is the equivalent of trying to persuade me to vote for a communist dictator?

Naive as I am, I've read Chomsky position papers, too...and he supports a public responsibility for decent behavior, but doesn't take the blame away from the individual for making poor decisions.

I don't blame the Marlboro man for my smoking habit from the time I was 16 until the time I was 30. I don't blame the infomercial that made me pick up the phone and buy the Amazing One Sweep (hey, I got the second one free) even though I didn't 'need' it...I don't blame the political machine for causing all of those voters in the south to support Dubya - they made their own beds, I hope they're comfortable.

Your solution is to say "Who can blame the Chinese?" I can. I live in a country where, like it or not, and worthy or not, I get to read whatever books I want, see the news however it's shown, read whatever newspapers that are published, and then formulate my own opinion on what's happening in my government, in other governments and all around the world. I don't have to believe what the news, or the search engine or the books say, because I can read supporting and opposing views, and have my own thoughts.

The Chinese government isn't waging some war against the "manufactured consent" doled out by Google and Yahoo and MSN - it's deliberately and categorically hiding the rest of the world's judicial and political views. Heaven forbid someone over there have an idea that the government didn't sanction. You're right, the government is totally justified in preventing THAT.

Atta girl, Rebecca!!!

Kick his socialist, conspiracy theory-believing ass from here to China!!!

Have you really read Chomsky position papers? My god, you are an amazing woman. If I wasn't married, I would actively court you.

Steve C.

I've stopped using google because of this. Good article.

As Dvorak said in this article:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1916910,00.asp

Google is the only one refusing to turn over search records to Dubya...so you're what? Going to use Yahoo??? Please. Those whiny ass pansies would turn in their mother for "questionable" searches...especially if it made them a buck.

Whoo, big deal. A list of search queries with no IP address or user session info.

If you have a website you've got similar info in your site stats. I can find out that people came across my site looking for "Keira Knightley's nipples", but I have no idea who it was who actually found me, or from what machine they searched based on the search queries alone.

I see a cage match coming between Rebecca and Chris. Cool.

Okay, so lemme get this straight. You're boycotting Google for doing what everyone else is doing, even though they are at least showing the pages that are missing, you just can't access them. Yahoo doesn't even show the full search return. Neither does M$ or AOL.

But they stand firm on the privacy of their users, regardless of what information is being given by the others, and you say big whoop.

That makes no sense. The argument here is that compliance is acceptance. By complying with the Chinese national laws on censorship, they are somehow accepting that communism is okay; that's what all the hype is about. No one pitched a fit when they did the same thing in France. Well, by the same argument, complying with government subpoenas implies acceptance that they can infringe on our privacy...what will they ask for in the next round of subpeonas? Dubya is tapping phones for crap's sake, you think searches and email and the like aren't right around the corner?

Google is still one of the good guys. Am I personally disappointed with them? Yes, I had hoped they would stand firm or walk away. Am I going to use Yahoo, MSN or *barf* AOL, ummmmm, hell no.

please excuse the disjointedness of my response, but I am writing this during breaks while at work.

The whole thing is MSN, AOL, Yahoo were already known to have succumbed to corporate greed. Microsoft has been BIG Evil since god knows when. Google on the other has firmly stated from day one "we're not like those other guys at all! We're good guys! If you don't believe us, check out our slogan! Don't be evil!"

Google's censorship in France is intended to comply with their local laws against Nazi propoganda. On the other hand the censorship in China is to cover up human rights abuses commited by the communist party. I don't seem to recall any cases of France detaining and torturing their own people for discussing freedom, distributing a religious pamphlets, or for saying Jaques Chirac is an asshole. Google's compliance with the chinese laws in effect implies their support of the party's practices. And how exactly is the support of human rights abuses not evil? Not to mention this sort of censorship, eliminating factual items (see: tienamen square, taiwan, etc.)rather than mere propoganda, goes directly against their mission of making the world's information available to all.

You Google fanboys always get up in arms about anyone who criticises the big G, but what exactly have they done that is so innovative? Gmail? Hotmail. Google's Personalized homepage? MyYahoo. Orkut? Friendster. Google Talk? Skype. Froogle? any number of shopping sites. Google? Yahoo.

And again, I don't see what exactly they are protecting by denying the govt a list of search terms. They collect a lot more information than that on a daily basis. What the govt is asking for is like checking Billboard for what the top 20 music albums are. They may see that something is selling, but they have no way to find out that you're the schmuck that bought the new Madonna CD. It's the exact same thing. No different.

And by boycotting Google, I'm not advocating using AOL, Yahoo, or MSN. Hell, there are other search engines to test out. Granted they are in their infancy, but they do show promise.You may want to check out Fybersearch or mozDex.

As far as google being one of the good guys, check this out: http://www.rinf.com/news/nov05/googlefacts.html

And just watch PBS. Just by watching an interview with Schmidt you can tell he's one of the slimiest bastards out there. ;)

Skipping back a few messages, "What's wrong with PETA?" Good heavens, where do I start? How about with the fact that they are a bunch of raving lunatics?

I mean, if you dont like meat, hey, thats cool. Me, I'm a Level 5 vegetarian - I dont eat anything that casts a shadow. (I'm here all week - two shows Friday).

But PETA lost its relevance when they let the fringe element of their organization take over completely.

Alex Pacheco (PETA Co-founder) famously stated that "arson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are acceptable crimes when used for the animal cause". Sorry, Alex, but no.

Another PETA VP, Mary Beth Sweetland, said the following: "I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products--and I have no qualms about it. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."

Because you are SO much more important that the rest of us, eh?

Dont get me started on the famous comparisons they have made to the holocaust and slavery.

Like I said, the loonies have taken over.

Just remember "not tested on animals" means, in effect, "Tested on people."

PETA is bad news.

DOWN WITH GOOGLE!!!! If you don't use it, it will come to an end......Pass the word....STOP USING GOOGLE!!!!!!!!!!!!