Dell may pull out of China over Google incident

[The Kernel]

Why is there a need for China to be democratic now, bearing in mind that China is actually liberalising as we speak.

How exactly are they becoming more liberal? This is still the country with massive censorship and a government that disappears anyone who speaks out publicly against them.

Not really, most of the news report are saying that Google isn't really earning back the investment they have made and their business isn't really growing to the level that they wanted.

Relative to the US market maybe, but Google still owned 30% of the search market in China. Most of their lack of dominance has to do with China shutting out all of their services besides search.

[K. A. Pital]

So we should never champion a positive effort by a corporation?

Let's say for example Pfizer decided to start giving away HIV drugs to Africans for free...would you respond to that by pointing out how they fuck people out of money elsewhere in the world? Are you really that bitter?

Perhaps yes. Because Big Pharma does fuck people out of money elsewhere in the world. And yes, I am bitter. I'm not a well-off First World citizen like you, and I've seen enough of corporate "behaviour" to be bitter.

They give HIV drugs for free? Good. I also hope they cover the costs of these drugs from the pay of the super-wealthy people at the top. No? They don't. I know - they suck the money from working consumers of their products. It's not THEM paying for these free drugs; it's us, their clients (who may not be all that wealthy anyhow). I'm sure it's factored in the price of their drugs.

So if it happens, are you sure it's the thing you champion, or it's just a fucking PR stunt?

They also could have not given a fuck in this case but they chose to do so anyway. And in doing so they screwed themselves out of billions in revenue plus a rapidly expanding market with no benefit besides some positive press.

Well if the government hacks your service, it's not really all that safe to operate in the nation, right? So they "screwed themselves" out of billions of dollars in revenue from Chinese advertisers, because they actually can - they have shitloads of other revenue sources. Oh boy. What a grand act of suffering for the just cause by millionaires, I can feel their pain. No, I can't.

Yes, they lost a market opportunity for good PR. Why would I even need to care about it, much less "champion" them when they continue to do bullshit in other parts? Has google lifted millions of people out of poverty, produced bazillions of antibiotics for the people and ensured 100% coverage?

No. It's just a fucking INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE. It's just... insignificant bullshit nothing. And people run around not just claiming it's significant, but also more moral than the rest? Duh.

How exactly are they becoming more liberal? This is still the country with massive censorship and a government that disappears anyone who speaks out publicly against them.

Maybe you should read about Chinese elections, political processes in China, the CPC public interaction in c.2009 and in c.1980. Perhaps you'd note a certain progress.

Relative to the US market maybe, but Google still owned 30% of the search market in China.

Yeah, it was. It was also losing that share to Baidu anyway (because Baidu is, frankly, superior when it comes to searching in hanzi). "Search market"? A search engine makes money by selling ads. Google lost some ad money for positive PR. D-oh.

[The Kernel]

Perhaps yes. Because Big Pharma does fuck people out of money elsewhere in the world. And yes, I am bitter. I'm not a well-off First World citizen like you, and I've seen enough of corporate "behaviour" to be bitter.

They give HIV drugs for free? Good. I also hope they cover the costs of these drugs from the pay of the super-wealthy people at the top. No? They don't. I know - they suck the money from working consumers of their products. It's not THEM paying for these free drugs; it's us, their clients (who may not be all that wealthy anyhow). I'm sure it's factored in the price of their drugs.

So if it happens, are you sure it's the thing you champion, or it's just a fucking PR stunt?

Well at least you are honest about your irrationality.

Well if the government hacks your service, it's not really all that safe to operate in the nation, right?

They hacked the Gmail accounts of a few dozen users through fishing schemes, not the goddamn Google mainframe.

So they "screwed themselves" out of billions of dollars in revenue from Chinese advertisers, because they actually can - they have shitloads of other revenue sources. Oh boy. What a grand act of suffering for the just cause by millionaires, I can feel their pain. No, I can't.

Clearly you don't know how a public company works. Google's stock price is based on GROWTH and screwing yourself out of the world's biggest growth market is bound to have a hit to your stock price (in fact it already has).

How you can crow that companies only care about money in one sentence and then say that they will casually throw away billions in the next with a straight face is beyond me.

Yes, they lost a market opportunity for good PR. Why would I even need to care about it, much less "champion" them when they continue to do bullshit in other parts? Has google lifted millions of people out of poverty, produced bazillions of antibiotics for the people and ensured 100% coverage?

No. It's just a fucking INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE. It's just... insignificant bullshit nothing. And people run around not just claiming it's significant, but also more moral than the rest? Duh.

Well that takes the cake as the most bizarre rant I've heard this week.

Maybe you should read about Chinese elections, political processes in China, the CPC public interaction in c.2009 and in c.1980. Perhaps you'd note a certain progress.

Care to actually provide meaningful evidence besides waving your hand vaguely?

Yeah, it was. It was also losing that share to Baidu anyway (because Baidu is, frankly, superior when it comes to searching in hanzi). "Search market"? A search engine makes money by selling ads. Google lost some ad money for positive PR. D-oh.

Yeah, I'm sure that a couple of news stories on CNN were as valuable as the entire search market in China.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I am personally hard pressed to think that this is anything but an altruistic ploy. Let's be frank here: GOogle is a business. Them going around blacking out the pictures of millionaire mansions etc. etc., and also doing a little censorship of certain news stories negative of them, and then recent tiff with publishers etc. over copyrights. Really, are they really that altruistic? Quite frankly, I don't even comprehend the big deal about censorship in China. If they want to censor, let them! The average Chinese on the street probably care more about food on the table anyway, and less than half the country has access to the internet.

If by anything, the real problem to deal with is not so much censorship, but the fact that the Chinese justice system needs serious tweaking so that the government can't do what it bloody wants when it wants it, as well as corruption here and there.

[ray245]

Maybe you should read about Chinese elections, political processes in China, the CPC public interaction in c.2009 and in c.1980. Perhaps you'd note a certain progress.

Care to actually provide meaningful evidence besides waving your hand vaguely?

We never set out to prove that China is a liberal nation. Saying that they are liberalising is completely different from saying that they are a liberal nation.

And can you answer why do you think that becoming a democratic nation all of a sudden will make China better?

Clearly you don't know how a public company works. Google's stock price is based on GROWTH and screwing yourself out of the world's biggest growth market is bound to have a hit to your stock price (in fact it already has).

How you can crow that companies only care about money in one sentence and then say that they will casually throw away billions in the next with a straight face is beyond me.

I thought that Google isn't growing in China and is shrinking due to its competition with Baidu?

[K. A. Pital]

Well at least you are honest about your irrationality.

What's irrational, moron? Let's take your example: Pfizer gives drugs away for free in nation X. Meanwhile it raises prices in all nations from A to Z, to cover the expenses. Let me guess - the poor people in nations A-Z are fucked, because drugs become less available. Also, the drug industry of X, if there was any, is destroyed.

Another example - of a real action - Pfizer builds a plant in nation X, which produces shitloads of drugs for nation X (eventually nation X starts making it's own generics on it's own plants, learning) and it's children stop dying like fleas. That's a more commendable action, even if it's done purely in Pfizer's interest, than the PR stunt above.

I hate to paraphrase George W. Bush, but Democracy is a messy business. China becoming more open and with a less oppressive government is better for everyone in the long run even if it causes short-term pain.

Really? "Short term pain"? It's 20 years and my nation still struggles to reach the life level of the year 1990. Hundreds of thousands died violently from war and banditism and millions yet died prematurely for healthcare, economic and other reasons. You have the gall to just write it off as "the cost of democracy"? How is that different from building a utopia on the bones (not to mention that it's not even certain there would be a more successful government afterwards; not in 10, 20 or 30 years, not in a generation maybe).

Your democracy seems to be fundamentally Stalinist in nature - no matter how many people have to die for the bright future (democracy in your case), it's but a temporary suffering and thus is easily rationalized. But it's not really honest, is it, to claim the pain is "short term"?

How you can crow that companies only care about money in one sentence and then say that they will casually throw away billions in the next with a straight face is beyond me.

I said this particular PR move had it's reasons, that's all. Google was fed up with the Chinese government bullshit. So what? It's pretty fine with all the other bullshit it does. Why the FUCK should I care?

Care to actually provide meaningful evidence besides waving your hand vaguely?

Well, for a start, the Chinese have actually written down the human rights protection in 2004 in the Constitution; prior to that there was no legal basis for it even, abolished "counter-revolutionary crimes", etc. Since 1994 one can sue officials in China. There has been experimentation with competitive elections on the local government level. All these changes occured slowly since 1982, when the Chinese attempted to mirror the Soviet liberalization (only in part, though).

So you don't know about any of these trends. What now?

Perhaps you live in some sort of mirror universe where governments are fluffy kittens which have spotless human rights records (90% do not, I believe), but it's a luxury of the rich world. Of the First World, more precisely, which has by and large been for the most of it's history a ruthless imperialist opressor of the less developed nations.

So you want the Chinese to improve? Good. Did Google do the right thing? Sure. Does it mean Google are some sort of moral beacon, and also one should desire for a similar corporate "punshiment" of China by ALL corporations, which would cause severe economic hardship for the nation? That doesn't follow logically.

[mr friendly guy]

What the Kernel means by his giant black / white fallacy regarding China not liberalising is really China is not liberalising FAST ENOUGH for his taste. Of course if he said that in the first place people won't have to point out how fallacious his original statement is and would be opening up other lines of inquiry.

[ray245]

What the Kernel means by his giant black / white fallacy regarding China not liberalising is really China is not liberalising FAST ENOUGH for his taste. Of course if he said that in the first place people won't have to point out how fallacious his original statement is and would be opening up other lines of inquiry.

Really? I don't think he even know about the liberalisation process in China.

[The Kernel]

Update: GoDaddy is getting in on the China boycott.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Internet domain company GoDaddy.com said it planned to stop registering domain names in China, joining Google Inc in protesting cyber attacks and censorship in that country.
"We believe that many of the current abuses of the Internet originating in China are due to a lack of enforcement against criminal activities by the Chinese government," Christine Jones, Go Daddy Group Inc general counsel, told a congressional commission hearing on Wednesday.
She said GoDaddy had repelled dozens of extremely serious attacks that appear to have originated in China in the first three months of 2010.
Jones said GoDaddy, based in Scottsdale, Arizona, would continue to manage .cn domain names of existing customers.
"Our experience has been that China is focused on using the Internet to monitor and control the legitimate activities of its citizens, rather than penalizing those who commit Internet-related crimes," Jones said.
Google said in January that it had sustained a hacking attack that it said originated in China. This week Google shut its Chinese portal over censorship and said it planned to phase out deals to provide filtered search services to other online or mobile firms in China.
Google said visitors to its China search engine, google.cn, were being redirected to Hong Kong-based google.com.hk.
"I compliment Google and I compliment GoDaddy," said Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan, chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, which focuses on human rights in China.
Republican Representative Chris Smith said GoDaddy's action was "a powerful sign that American IT companies want to do the right thing in repressive countries."
Google told the commission it was seeing intermittent censorship of some Internet queries from mainland China that had been rerouted to Hong Kong.
"We are well aware that the Chinese government can, at any time, block access to our services," Alan Davidson, Google's director of public policy, said in prepared testimony.
"Indeed we have already seen intermittent censorship of certain search queries on both google.com.hk and google.com."
Internet censorship has drawn increased attention from U.S. lawmakers since Google's spat with China began and a policy initiative by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to promote global Internet freedom.
"This is a foreign policy priority of the United States," said Democratic Senator Ted Kaufman, co-chair of the Senate's newly formed Global Internet Freedom Caucus.

[The Kernel]

What's irrational, moron? Let's take your example: Pfizer gives drugs away for free in nation X. Meanwhile it raises prices in all nations from A to Z, to cover the expenses. Let me guess - the poor people in nations A-Z are fucked, because drugs become less available. Also, the drug industry of X, if there was any, is destroyed.

Another example - of a real action - Pfizer builds a plant in nation X, which produces shitloads of drugs for nation X (eventually nation X starts making it's own generics on it's own plants, learning) and it's children stop dying like fleas. That's a more commendable action, even if it's done purely in Pfizer's interest, than the PR stunt above.

Yeah sure, keep telling yourself that Google gave up China for good PR. I'm sure everyone thinks that's a rational argument.

Really? "Short term pain"? It's 20 years and my nation still struggles to reach the life level of the year 1990. Hundreds of thousands died violently from war and banditism and millions yet died prematurely for healthcare, economic and other reasons. You have the gall to just write it off as "the cost of democracy"? How is that different from building a utopia on the bones (not to mention that it's not even certain there would be a more successful government afterwards; not in 10, 20 or 30 years, not in a generation maybe).

Your democracy seems to be fundamentally Stalinist in nature - no matter how many people have to die for the bright future (democracy in your case), it's but a temporary suffering and thus is easily rationalized. But it's not really honest, is it, to claim the pain is "short term"?

Blah, blah, blah, are you honestly trying to argue that personal freedoms in China would be a BAD thing?

I said this particular PR move had it's reasons, that's all. Google was fed up with the Chinese government bullshit. So what? It's pretty fine with all the other bullshit it does. Why the FUCK should I care?

Don't care, but don't try to claim it's a meaningless profit driven motive when you can't prove it worth shit.

Well, for a start, the Chinese have actually written down the human rights protection in 2004 in the Constitution; prior to that there was no legal basis for it even, abolished "counter-revolutionary crimes", etc. Since 1994 one can sue officials in China. There has been experimentation with competitive elections on the local government level. All these changes occured slowly since 1982, when the Chinese attempted to mirror the Soviet liberalization (only in part, though).

So you don't know about any of these trends. What now?

They also routinely "disappear" dissenters and have the stories purged from the internet, they censor any information that might be seen as subversive and they have a propaganda machine that would make Hitler proud.

Perhaps you live in some sort of mirror universe where governments are fluffy kittens which have spotless human rights records (90% do not, I believe), but it's a luxury of the rich world. Of the First World, more precisely, which has by and large been for the most of it's history a ruthless imperialist opressor of the less developed nations.

Nice black/white fallacy you have there.

So you want the Chinese to improve? Good. Did Google do the right thing? Sure. Does it mean Google are some sort of moral beacon, and also one should desire for a similar corporate "punshiment" of China by ALL corporations, which would cause severe economic hardship for the nation? That doesn't follow logically.

Nice strawman assfuck, now point to where I said Google was a moral beacon. Oh wait, you can't can you?

What the Kernel means by his giant black / white fallacy regarding China not liberalising is really China is not liberalising FAST ENOUGH for his taste. Of course if he said that in the first place people won't have to point out how fallacious his original statement is and would be opening up other lines of inquiry.

I'd be happy if they'd just stop arresting and murdering political dissidents. Got a problem with that?

Really? I don't think he even know about the liberalisation process in China.

When they stop arresting and murdering citizens that dare to speak out against the government and start taking some semblance of social responsibility for their citizenry you get back to me.

[ray245]

Really? I don't think he even know about the liberalisation process in China.

When they stop arresting and murdering citizens that dare to speak out against the government and start taking some semblance of social responsibility for their citizenry you get back to me.

They are liberalising. Pointing out to us that they are still arresting their citizens does not mean they are not liberalising.

[The Kernel]

I am personally hard pressed to think that this is anything but an altruistic ploy. Let's be frank here: GOogle is a business. Them going around blacking out the pictures of millionaire mansions etc. etc., and also doing a little censorship of certain news stories negative of them, and then recent tiff with publishers etc. over copyrights. Really, are they really that altruistic?

There is a world of difference between that and acting as an extension of the propaganda arm of the Chinese government which is what they were doing before now.

Quite frankly, I don't even comprehend the big deal about censorship in China. If they want to censor, let them! The average Chinese on the street probably care more about food on the table anyway, and less than half the country has access to the internet.

If by anything, the real problem to deal with is not so much censorship, but the fact that the Chinese justice system needs serious tweaking so that the government can't do what it bloody wants when it wants it, as well as corruption here and there.

The free flow of information is the key to developing the sort of personal freedoms that the rest of the world enjoys. If you don't know the truth about something, how can you protest it and act as a check on governmental power? Which is exactly why the Chinese want to cover it up so badly.

We never set out to prove that China is a liberal nation. Saying that they are liberalising is completely different from saying that they are a liberal nation.

And can you answer why do you think that becoming a democratic nation all of a sudden will make China better?

You need me to explain why a free society where citizens have the right to question government is better than a totalitarian regime? Really?

I thought that Google isn't growing in China and is shrinking due to its competition with Baidu?

Their market share was relatively static, but the market itself is growing hand-over-fist.

[The Kernel]

They are liberalising. Pointing out to us that they are still arresting their citizens does not mean they are not liberalising.

Provide proof beyond vague generalizations that they are doing any meaningful reforms towards freedom of speech and expression. Given that they are still censoring and still arresting people for political dissent (not to mention doing things like hacking into the email boxes of human rights activists) I think you'll have a tough time doing that.

[ray245]

They are liberalising. Pointing out to us that they are still arresting their citizens does not mean they are not liberalising.

Provide proof beyond vague generalizations that they are doing any meaningful reforms towards freedom of speech and expression. Given that they are still censoring and still arresting people for political dissent (not to mention doing things like hacking into the email boxes of human rights activists) I think you'll have a tough time doing that.

That does not mean they are not liberalising you idiot.

[The Kernel]

That does not mean they are not liberalising you idiot.

There's this little thing called PROOF you fucking ignorant moron.

[ray245]

That does not mean they are not liberalising you idiot.

There's this little thing called PROOF you fucking ignorant moron.

Didn't Stas Bush already mentioned that reforms that was passed by the CCP that allows elections on the local levels and etc? Did those points fly over your head? Are you saying those reforms should not be counted as liberalisation just because China still jailed political dissenters?

[mr friendly guy]

They also routinely "disappear" dissenters and have the stories purged from the internet, they censor any information that might be seen as subversive and they have a propaganda machine that would make Hitler proud.

That does not refute his statement that improvements have been made. As I said your problem is that the improvements aren't FAST ENOUGH and if you said that straight off the bat I wouldn't consider you a dishonest dipshit.

What the Kernel means by his giant black / white fallacy regarding China not liberalising is really China is not liberalising FAST ENOUGH for his taste. Of course if he said that in the first place people won't have to point out how fallacious his original statement is and would be opening up other lines of inquiry.

I'd be happy if they'd just stop arresting and murdering political dissidents. Got a problem with that?

Lets channel you for a moment. I know its painful for my brain too.

Nice strawman assfuck, now point to where I said I would have problem with them NOT arresting political dissidents. Oh wait, you can't can you?

Are you even going to address the point? You know the part where you say they are not liberalising is shown to be wrong and what you really meant was they aren't liberalising fast enough for your taste. But your hard on hate for the CCP is quite amusing really.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah sure, keep telling yourself that Google gave up China for good PR. I'm sure everyone thinks that's a rational argument.

I said they got fed up with the hacking and lo, a good opportunity for PR manifested itself once they quit. I didn't say PR was the reason they quit. On the other hand, you did jack and shit to address my point that corporations still continue their behavior and such actions do not constitute a fundamental change in that behavior.

Blah, blah, blah, are you honestly trying to argue that personal freedoms in China would be a BAD thing?

Blah, blah, blah, you're an idiot who can't discern between personal and political freedom, and of course between personal freedom and collapse of government. Because how'd you achieve political freedom in China, OTHER than by allowing China to liberalize gradually? The other option is to destroy it's current government. Which would lead to mass hardship. There are options inbetween, but they all depend on the stance of the CCP and, most importantly, the support of the CCP by the Chinese people or lack thereof.

I haven't seen you propose any sort of viable strategy for Chinese liberalization. Instead, you went to rant about "blah blah blah", whereas I have pointed out the real steps towards a better political establishment, better human rights and better legal proceedings that the Chinese have actually enacted.

They also routinely "disappear" dissenters and have the stories purged from the internet, they censor any information that might be seen as subversive and they have a propaganda machine that would make Hitler proud.

You asked for evidence of liberalization - I have provided it. Concede your point, the Chinese are making their system better. Even if it's still an autocracy, it's far milder and more institutionally transparent than it was before, and they have enacted these steps consciously.

They dissapear dissenters? So what? So does Russia. Google quit Russia? No? WHY? Tell me now, WHY?

Russia not only purges stories from the internet, it jails bloggers. It wipes out news which are "unfit" for the common citizen, routinely replaces headlines which might cause too much trouble, like "Russia is #1 in Europe by the number of billionaires while millions are in poverty" on a top news portal being changed to a mild "Richest Russian owns XX billion". Got a problem?

Where is your moral corporation doing shit?

Nice black/white fallacy you have there.

That's all you can say? I live in a nation where dissenters dissapear and Google censors the mansions of our corrupt mafia leaders on it's satellite maps. Why is Google still here? Why, then, hasn't Sergey Brin made it's fucking search engine dissapear from Russia?

Nice strawman assfuck, now point to where I said Google was a moral beacon. Oh wait, you can't can you?

Valdemar said other corporations should come down on China like a ton of bricks, removing their assets and causing the Chinese government to collapse. When I adressed this point, you answered that "well tough luck, in the words of Bush, democracy requires blood is a messy business". Nice backpedalling.

I would dearly love for this to come to something that really makes The Party take a long, hard look at their current status and question whether their wealth and power would still be there if everyone upped and went to India, for instance.

If it happens right now, this would probably cause an economic collapse of China and unmitigated economic hardship on a population which barely rose from agrarian poverty into industrialism. But hey, political pipe dreams make it perfectly well to wish folks suffering in the name of freedom, right?

Most people don't realise there are ordinary people who lives in China.

I hate to paraphrase George W. Bush, but Democracy is a messy business. China becoming more open and with a less oppressive government is better for everyone in the long run even if it causes short-term pain.

Now, will you answer the points raised or backpedal? Maybe you want to install a trade boycott against all nations who have egregious human rights violations? Well maybe you should start from Saudi Arabia, where semi-slaves ruled by an opressive theocracy labour for your fucking oil to fuel your cars? And only then start with China? No?

Maybe you should support Google leaving Russia and ALL other post-Soviet nations which do imprison bloggers, dissappear dissenters, purge internet articles? Maybe Google should also leave all South East Asia, which I'm sure has a worse record than China? Perhaps it should leave Thailand, Vietnam, etc. etc. Maybe Google should leave Turkmenia? Do you know what it's leader did to it's population?

Fuck you, you ignorant fucking hypocrite. Google leaving China, a nation that did perhaps the MOST progress for it's population for the last 20-30 years, and remaining in all the nations listed above is just PURE, PUREST hypocrisy. Fuck you, fuck google, fuck your moralist idiot stances.

Oh hey, and why didn't google leave Zimbabwe? Unlike the Chinese, people there are fucking impoverished and on hte brink of starvation. Call me when Google leaves Mugabe's little land. Then I'll see.

[Elaro]

So Google pulls out of a region after suffering espionage attempts from what seems to be the government of that region? Okay. That seems to be sound, self-interested management. Is it particularly moral? It doesn't seem so.

[Kane Starkiller]

Oh hey, and why didn't google leave Zimbabwe? Unlike the Chinese, people there are fucking impoverished and on hte brink of starvation. Call me when Google leaves Mugabe's little land. Then I'll see.

But wouldn't leaving Zimbabwe and Russia while staying in China be the thing to do if this was about PR and making more money? If the goal was to bolster PR while maximizing profit this was the worst thing they could've done.

[K. A. Pital]

Oh hey, and why didn't google leave Zimbabwe? Unlike the Chinese, people there are fucking impoverished and on hte brink of starvation. Call me when Google leaves Mugabe's little land. Then I'll see.

But wouldn't leaving Zimbabwe and Russia while staying in China be the thing to do if this was about PR and making more money? If the goal was to bolster PR while maximizing profit this was the worst thing they could've done.

I don't think Brin would seriously consider leaving Russia. As for Zimbabwe, they could've also moved out but they didn't. Why?

The goal wasn't to "bolster PR" - like I said, they got fed up with Chinese hacking and went off. Did you even read my post?

I said they got fed up with the hacking and lo, a good opportunity for PR manifested itself once they quit. I didn't say PR was the reason they quit

But then, after they left, they tried to paint it as some sort of moral decision. Was it really? If it was a moral decision, google.ca.zw should have ceased to exist a long time ago. That's my point. That's why it's an obvious PR stunt, but PR stunt is not the reason for their leave. Hacking is.

Google doesn't give two shits about the morals of where it localizes, until the government of said place starts hacking them. The only difference between Russia, China and Zimbabwe (well, aside from the fact that the very last one is a failed state where people starve) is that neither Russia nor Zimbabwe hacked Google. Their record as governments is absolutely irrelevant here.

Thanks for failing to see it, as usual.

[Mayabird]

Oh hey, and why didn't google leave Zimbabwe? Unlike the Chinese, people there are fucking impoverished and on hte brink of starvation. Call me when Google leaves Mugabe's little land. Then I'll see.

But wouldn't leaving Zimbabwe and Russia while staying in China be the thing to do if this was about PR and making more money? If the goal was to bolster PR while maximizing profit this was the worst thing they could've done.

How many people actually know how bad it is with the oligarchs in Russia? How many people actually give a damn about Zimbabwe? And have you noticed recently how China is being made out to be the next big boogieman in the media more and more?

Plus what Stas said already (glad I previewed before posting). Ideal excuse for PR morality stunt.

[Kane Starkiller]

But if Google is there to provide easy accessible information to the people (which it is) then if Zimbabwe and Russia are not obstructing the actual working of the engine there is no point in leaving is there? The governments are still corrupt and there is no search engine on top of it. But if the government is hacking Google and taking personal information to use against people then Google becomes part of the problem.

[K. A. Pital]

But if Google is there to provide easy accessible information to the people (which it is) then if Zimbabwe and Russia are not obstructing the actual working of the engine there is no point in leaving is there?

Exactly. But people here have ranted about "sponsoring opressive governments". Google's existence in Russia sponsors opression. The oligarchs also interfered with the working of Google, at least on one occasion.

So if the point of leaving China was to stop hacking and remove Google from the equation alltogther, that's good and well.

However, people shouldn't pretend that Google left "not to sponsor the Chinese government" or "make a point to the Chinese goverment because it's so bad". If anything, it leaving sponsored the Chinese domestic search engine more than anything, which is fully compliant with government regulations. Google could "make a point' because the Chinese hacked it. Not because the Chinese have the worst possible government and Google the paragon of morality decided to quit on them, which is what some insinuated - that google had some moral underpinnings.

[Kane Starkiller]

Exactly. But people here have ranted about "sponsoring opressive governments". Google's existence in Russia sponsors opression. The oligarchs also interfered with the working of Google, at least on one occasion.

If Google removes images of peoples houses (I belive that is what you are referring to) how is it sponsoring oppressive governments? How is one oppressed if he can't find someones house on Google Maps? If, on the other hand, the government is using google accounts to find people and detain them then Google has indeed become a tool for the government to oppress people. Thus Google needed to react and it did.
In fact one could say that in both cases safety of people is at stake. You might not like oligarchs but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing to make it easy for a kidnapper to plot how to snatch his 8 year old daughter for ransom for example.