I’m talking about Yahoo, Microsoft and Google, of course, those three Internet mega-corporations who are actively cooperating with totalitarianism in China.
Google is the latest to prostrate itself before the new emperors. Timesonline sums it up:
Google today caved in to pressure from the Chinese Government by launching a localised version of its website that self-censors information deemed “subversive” by the Communist authorities.
The company, whose motto is “Don’t be evil”, has engineered its search facilities to restrict Chinese people from searching for information such as Tibetan independence or the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.
“In order to operate from China, we have removed some content from the search results available on Google.cn, in response to local law, regulation or policy,” the internet company said in a statement issued yesterday.
Okay, instead of boring everyone discussing the corporation’s probable rationale … we’re working from within their system, etc., etc., as if they were an automobile or ball-bearing firm and not a media company involved with the dissemination (or in this case non-dissemination) of information and ideas … I will cut to the proverbial chase. Since this is obviously a manifestation of corporate greed at its most unbridled, not to say cynically exploitive of (even, in a way, racist towards) the people of the most populace country on Earth, it’s time to deal with Google in a manner that could actually affect the retrograde policy of the company. In other word, it’s time for…
… a Google stock divestment campaign.
Everyone who cares about the free-flow of information, about democracy in China, in fact about democracy anywhere, should start selling their Google stock. This should begin most especially with those vast university endowments because academic institutions, of all places, should be most concerned with the censorship of ideas and information. Union pension plans as well should seek to divest as their members should be particularly appalled by the company’s restrictive behavior. I could go on, but you certainly get the point. I welcome suggestions for how to mount this campaign in the comments below.
(Full disclosure: I do not own any Google stock, but would, I’m assuming, have the courage of my convictions, if I did.)
The War of Information – Spirit of America
Roger,
Your definitely on to something. Damn, I just got the Google ad script to run right on my blog!
Anyway you’ve hit on a key strategic element to win the War of Information that must be won to eventually win the GWOT.
See this recent piece I wrote re the new annoymous blogging tools in Arabic, Farsi, and Chinese developed by the Spirit of America:
The War of Information – Spirit of America
HT Spirit of America
Great work again by Spirit of American to foster the free flow of news/info on the Net.
Now only if certain US based IT giants e.g., IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Texas Instruments, Cisco, and Motorola and the others who know who they are, would support the home team once in a while in the GWOT. Remember the Soviet Union began to crack with the spread of Xerox machines. A little white hacking of regime software/hardware would be patriotic too!
Not only do these companies have a vested economic interest in the outcome of the GWOT, they need to be reminded that their profits are dependent on a level playing field in a free economy. This level playing field is largely supported by the full faith and credit of the United States of America backed by the force projection of the US Military. The costs of which are largely borne by the American taxpayer.
And finally let’s not overlook the strategic importance of Western Rock Music! President MAD made a fatal decision recently by banning Western music from the Iranian Joyless Generation. Bad karma!
The stragetic means by which the GWOT will be won, is not by military force alone, but by winning the War of Information.
The followers of Islamofascism must be clearly shown that it is a failed/doomed ideology from the 6th thru 12th Century that has no place in the modern civilized world without a period of reformation or enlightenment.
See the other thread today where the Religion of Peace (RoP) is used as a justification for the hanging yet again of a 17 year old Iranian girl. This time for killing her attacker in what amounted to a gang rape!
Islamofascism’s principal failure is, unlike as set forth in the US Constitution, it does not recognize the universal truth of the free will of MEN and WOMEN!
Read More
I’m not opposed to a Google stock divestment, but I would heavily recommend the same for Yahoo, Microsoft etc.
—
I have long been a supporter and proponent of Open Sourc, and have worked with Internet technologies for over a decade to foster growth and the spread of information. However, it seems to me that I get conflicting views from this and some other blogs.
I seemed to recall Google being called evil for trying to scan books and provide access online through their search engine. Yet, this seems like a useful way to spread information to me. Is Google evil because they restrict information, or because they provide too much information? Indeed, what policy would seem most useful in regard to Information? Should information be freely available in order to teach, inspire and pass knowledge or ideas, or should it be limited, based on the rules of the country in which the information could be disseminated?
Would forcing Google to block sites that have a digital copy of material considered copyright by the US government be philosophically different than blocking sites that have digital copies of material considered inappropriate by the Chineese government?
It appears to me, that while we might be able to form an argument for one or the other, perhaps the best course of action would be to err on the side of free flowing information. One excuse to block some information, may simply open the door for other excuses to block different information.
Roger,
I suggest doing just the opposite. Get as many people as possible to buy just 1 share of their overpriced stock. Then let’s all pack the next shareholders meeting and register our disapproval.
Another possible reason to divest from Google… …aren’t these the guys who refused to provide the US government with statistical information on porn use, although such information would not compromise the “users” privacy, with one of the cited reasons being that they didn’t want to provide such information pro bono? (I only “half heard” the story over CBC radio early this morning, so may not have it entirely straight.)
Let’s see. This proposes that we disinvest from those firms who have and will continue to lose much money on their Chinese ventures (given piracy and other forms of state-sanctioned theft) while providing that population at least some of the benefits (and life lessons) of democracy and free-enterprise? (v. say, organizing a consumer boycott and not buying any product that has a “made in china” label?)
Do you mean to suggest that the infrastructure and services that assist the Chinese people in gaining some small increase in exposure to the rest of the democratic world is the equivalent of a munitions maker amorally selling to all buyers? Where would the Chinese populace be without google, yahoo, hotmail, etc? Does anyone think they’d be better off, more free?
Seems the proper forum for these complaints is the U.S. Congress and the State Department (and the Chinese people themselves). China is a signatory of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and of the International Covenant on Human Rights. Any reason to expect they won’t be held to the same standard (and outcomes) as the ex Soviet Union over some amount of time? Denying China access to US service companies makes about as much sense as boycotting companies that sold fax machines to the USSR. Or boycotting the company that sold Saddam recycling machines that he used for people-shredders.
Do we really want commercial companies to be judge and jury, superior to a country’s law that they operate in? Or is this best left to governments to argue, and their citizens to “vote” (with their pocketbook, with whom they do business with, where they go to get information, etc.), irrespective of when they win their own political freedom.
Roger,
Let us suppose you succeed? Let us suppose Google, Yahoo, and Microsoftare are punished as you desire and as a result cease doing business in China, either because you pressure them to withdraw or the Chinese leadership throws them out for not abiding by their rules. How exactly have you improved the situation of the Chinese people? Do you seriously believe that by threatening harm against US companies you are exerting influence on Beijing? Or do you simply advocate punishing people who do things you don’t like, with no serious analysis of the situation, and no thought for the consequences?
The people who claim Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft are supporting totalitarianism have no clue about how totalitarianism is actually supported; what it in fact requires for its continued existence. The key fact is that by operating in China at all, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft break the Chinese Leadership’s monopoly in information. It is unimportant that they obey this restriction or that one; that they do not operate in China with the openess we expect in the US. Totalitarianism is inherently fragile; any uncontrolled flow of information, even a small amount, will seriously weaken,and eventually destroy it.
By operating at all, US IT companies in China exert pressure on the Leadership, increase the flow of infomation between individuals, and expose the Chinese public to an alternate world view, all of which critically changes the dynamic of repression on which totalitarianism relies. These companies deserve our support, not condemnation and threats based on ignorance.
While I do not know the extent of Ari’s position, I’m afraid I agree more with him than with our host’s (Roger’s) position.
Doing business in almost any country requires compliance with local laws and mores. Some of the laws and mores do not recognize the same sensibilities we have. Blindly enforcing our sensibilities is a type of arrogance on our part.
OK, so if not blindly, what about in this instance? Is the Google stated position of “It’s better to provide some information than none?” an unreasonable position?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not for government determination of what we can see and not see. I’m not for censorship. Although I can think of several examples of censorship that we seem to find acceptable. No Christmas displays in town squares or prayer in schools comes to mind.
Their centralized planning government is giving way to more capitalism and more freedom to move about the country. More freedoms will come. Outrage can be useful in making things faster (please,) but is not all that necessary.
I’m curious as to just how successful, from a technical point of view, any single-nation censorship of the internet would be? I help manage the computer network at my kids’ school, and it’s certainly a challenge to keep them from accidentally stumbling upon pornographic material while they are just innocently noodling around.
Is it better for the Chinese to have an internet with broken censorship? Certainly if the censorship is broken enough then the internet is a pretty subversive force…
cathy
I did check and a search for “Roger Simon” on http://www.Google.cn will indeed bring you here. So Roger, you can continue to blog about Chinese oppresion and show up on Google (at least for the moment).
I’m always apalled that in certain European countries you cannot easily get to google.com – it redirects to the local country automatically. Yahoo and MSN don’t do this.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, guys. Slow up a minute. Before condemning the major search engines for what they’ve done, stop and consider the fact that Chinese citizenry has for years now been finding ways around censored content via external proxies, “replication” pages (sort of like the Wayback Machine, except for current, not archived content), and other sorts of techniques. Proxying alone is such a big issue that it’s very openly discussed as a problem by Chinese admins and bureaucrats. Given that, and given that it’s very difficult to imagine the major search engines being ignorant of the circumvention methods (damn near impossible to imagine; much of the proxying disucssion can be found through Google), how do we know that they’re not giving in because they know it really doesn’t matter? How do we know they’re not just letting some government bureaucrats deceive themselves into thinking that they’re being effective in controlling the info?
If I were working for Google, I’d cave too. Not to let the Chinese government control information, but to let them think they’re doing so, and to actually put the content they’re so scared about far beyond their control. The intended audience will still be able to get at it, and the government will be allowed to fool themselves into thinking they’re being successful at controlling it.
I also am troubled by Google’s behavior, though the above comments make a pretty good case that they aren’t really being evil.
Regardless of the truth of the matter, selling your stock to punish them is just silly. You should sell only if you think you can invest more profitably elsewhere. Selling stock because you disagree with a company’s practices not only fails the test of economic sense, it makes no moral sense either.
If someone is trying to start up a company that (for example) renders baby seals for combustible hydrocarbons, you may be able to stop him by refusing to invest, but if the company is already a going concern, your stock buying decisions won’t affect its profitability.
You know, this was sort of my reaction to start with, but then I read this:
Maybe Google is being less evil than you thought?
(And yes, that was the whole text — I generally don’t like to do that, but in this case it seemed necessary.)
Getting around restrictions and filters is easy.
For example, quite a few corporations filter web access for all sorts of reasons. Usually they do this by forcing every windows machine to accept a central machine as a web proxy. The simplest way to avoid this (beyond using a more secure, less easily subvertible OS) is to contact a machine outside the network via ssh, and have that machine run its own web proxy. Set up ssh to tunnel port 3128 over the connection, set your browsers proxy to localhost on port 3128, connect to the remote system, et voila! An encrypted tunnel giving you full access to the Internet.
Maybe a freedom lovin’ outfit like oh say Pajamas Media would kick loose a machine to provide such-like services to oppressed people everywhere. ‘Course it’s a lot easier to put other people’s money where your mouth is, isn’t it?
Instead of Google, I have been using Teoma (http://www.teoma.com/) for years. Google returns thousands more “hits”, but most of those are dupes or not related to what I am searching for. I only resort to Google when Teoma comes up empty.
Dear Roger,
I think most of the commenters are misunderstanding your point –that the universities having stood up to such tyrants as
Israel and evil warmongers as Halliburton,
should keep “their honor” and sell Google.
Don’t hold your breath Roger – “academentia”
loves the Lefty leaning set up search order.
And they also love socialism – so why would
they ever consider divesting themselves of a
dream – Capitalism that support Socialism.
Great challenge.
Note that the NYT’s USA bad -(Page A1)
Google GOOD – China – GOOD TOO?(Biz Page 3)
“By contrast, a genuinely troubling story about Googleís attempt to cope with the Chinese governmentís control of the Internet is buried on Page 3 of todayís business section and benignly headlined ìVersion of Google in China Won’t Offer E-Mail or Blogs.î The AP headline is tougher: ìGoogle Agrees to Censor Results in China.î
TimesWatch Tracker: Our Latest Analysis
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
NYT Gags on U.S.ís Google Request
Wednesdayís Page A1 story by Katie Hafner on Googleís refusal to turn over to the Justice Department its records on usersí search queries is headlined ìAfter Subpoenas, Internet Searches Give Some Pause,î and looks far and wide for disturbed googlers.
ìKathryn Hanson, a former telecommunications engineer who lives in Oakland, Calif., was looking at BBC News online last week when she came across an item about a British politician who had resigned over a reported affair with a ërent boy.í It was the first time Ms. Hanson had seen the term, so, in search of a definition, she typed it into Google. As Ms. Hanson scrolled through the results, she saw that several of the sites were available only to people over 18. She suddenly had a frightening thought. Would Google have to inform the government that she was looking for a rent boy — a young male prostitute? Ms. Hanson, 45, immediately told her boyfriend what she had done. ëI told him I’d Googled ìrent boy,î just in case I got whisked off to some Navy prison in the dead of night,í she said.î
The paranoid flavor of the article resembles a Times article from last year on some liberal librarians in Connecticut up in arms over the Patriot Act, and another from 2004, headlined ìSensing the Eyes of Big Brother, and Pushing Back.î
Hafner doesnít go into detail as to why the government wants the search information, only saying the request was ìpart of the [Justice Departmentís] effort to uphold an online pornography law.î
As columnist Jonah Goldberg explains at National Review Online:
ìThe Department of Justice is in a lawsuit with the ACLU over the Child Online Protection Act, which is designed to help prevent kids from being exposed to online porn. The law ran afoul of the First Amendment, according to a lower court, and the Supreme Court asked for additional information pending its final decision on the matter. The Department of Justice asked Google, as well as MSN, Yahoo!, and Time Warner (AOL’s parent), to provide data on their search engines from a one-week periodÖ.No personal information was asked for and none has been given. Everyone but Google complied, because there’s really no reason not to. Google, however, sees itself in a very idealistic light and has decided to stand on principle against the government, prompting huzzahs from all the predictable sources.î
Hafner writes: ìThe government and the cooperating companies say the search queries cannot be traced to their source, and therefore no personal information about users is being given up. But the government’s move is one of several recent episodes that have caused some people to think twice about the information they type into a search engine, or the opinions they express in an e-mail message.
ìThe government has been more aggressive recently in its efforts to obtain data on Internet activity, invoking the fight against terrorism and the prosecution of online crime. A surveillance program in which the National Security Agency intercepted certain international phone calls and e-mail in the United States without court-approved warrants prompted an outcry among civil libertarians. And under the antiterrorism USA Patriot Act, the Justice Department has demanded records on library patrons’ Internet use.
ìThose actions have put some Internet users on edge, as they confront the complications and contradictions of online life.î
Hafner begins as she ends, with paranoia: ì[Jim] Kowats, the television producer, shares that fear. ëWhere does it stop?í he said. ëWhat about file sharing? Scalping tickets? Or traveling to Cuba? What if you look up abortion? Who says you can’t look up those things? What are the limits? It’s the little chipping away. It’s a slippery slope.íî
By contrast, a genuinely troubling story about Googleís attempt to cope with the Chinese governmentís control of the Internet is buried on Page 3 of todayís business section and benignly headlined ìVersion of Google in China Won’t Offer E-Mail or Blogs.î The AP headline is tougher: ìGoogle Agrees to Censor Results in China.î
Roger–
I own stock in all of these companies. If you could supply me with the e-mail addresses of the appropriate corporate chairmen (or should I say women) I am more than willing to threaten stock-holder lawsuits and other, if necessary, action!
I went to google.cn and got tons of info on Falungong and Tiananmen. Do you have to physically be in China to get censored results?
There’s an argument to be made that you have to comply with the laws of a country to do business in that country, regardless of how repugnant we may find the particular regime. And of course, it’s not like Google is providing China with rocket engine technology.
My personal belief is that the internet will not be able to be controlled from the China side any better than it has been here in the USA. Anything that gets more of them online will help bring down the regime.
(Full disclosure: I do not own any Google stock, but would, I’m assuming (?), have the courage of my convictions, if I did.)
Assuming? assuming?
I guess JFK wouldn’t have picked you for Profiles in Courage II.
The argument that Chinese users can go to Google.com is bogus. I know for a fact that, presumably to comply with Belgian laws, I cannot get to google.com from a Belgian IP address. So I’m almost certain that the chinese user needs to log on to a non-Chinese (and non-Belgian) IP address in order to access Google.com. This may not be so easy.
Roger,
The fact that you are not a current Google shareholder shouldn’t stop you from selling google shares. As most people know, you can sell the stock short. If your idea come from a deep conviction, not just a ill-thoughtout rant, then I would hope that you short Google.
If others feel the same way and either sell the stock or better yet, stop using google (which, by the way, you didn’t espouse – although it is by far the most effective way to promote your view), the stock will go down, thereby confirming your stance, as well as putting money in your pocket. If the stock goes up, your conviction will be tested with real money. Will you sign up to this?
“Since this is obviously a manifestation of corporate greed at its most unbridled, not to say cynically exploitive of (even, in a way, racist towards) the people of the most populace country on Earth, it’s time to deal with Google in a manner that could actually affect the retrograde policy of the company. In other word, it’s time for…
… a Google stock divestment campaign.”
Mr. Simon, you should do a little research before you post sensationalist crap like this.
Google has done all that the Chinese government will allow, and then some. If someone does search for information on Tibetan independence or the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, a search page will come up with the headers for the results, thereby letting the user know there is information there that their government does not want them to see. Yahoo, MSN et al didn’t even do that.
Why don’t you direct your venom at Cisco? They are the ones who designed and sold thousands of custom routers that enable the government to censor the internet and track down users that violate policies. This would qualify as “corporate greed at its most unbridled, not to say cynically exploitive”.
Poor research on your part, yes?
If this is the type of action you are talking about, shouldn’t you be starting with WalMart?
Oh, for crying out loud. At this time we need to support Google and OUR RIGHTS. Let the Chinese business wait.
Hello,
Has somebody a contact e-mail for google corporates people ? I’d like to inform them that I’m now using a new search tool.
Thanks.
Lucane