In western democracies governments come and go and do not generally have a strong relationship with the population! I believe that this is different in the PRC where most of the population will ultimately put party and country first. Google is not taking on a temporary western style government it is effectively taking on most of the country! - who will no doubt largely side with the government line.
A new approach to China
311–320 of 392 posts
Re: A new approach to China
#312People are bringing flowers to the Google building: http://imgur.com/5xJmy.jpg http://img.gd/Dbn/full
Others (on reddit) are interpreting this as flowers on Google's gravestone.
A CNN reporter from China tweeted this image and translated the text as "Real Man"
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/imag...
Re: A new approach to China
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think (judging by downvotes) that I am being misunderstood. My thinking was along these lines: Mr Small Chinese Exporter wakes up tomorrow unable to access his Google Adwords account which is how he connects to foreign importers. He's out of widgets and wants to stop advertising them. He can't even suspend the campaign and they keep charging his credit card. That's bad business. I'm not sure China would want to do…
What happens to "Mr Small Chinese Exporter" is never a concern for such a government like the Chinese one ...
I disagree.
Re: A new approach to China
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think (judging by downvotes) that I am being misunderstood. My thinking was along these lines: Mr Small Chinese Exporter wakes up tomorrow unable to access his Google Adwords account which is how he connects to foreign importers. He's out of widgets and wants to stop advertising them. He can't even suspend the campaign and they keep charging his credit card. That's bad business. I'm not sure China would want to do…
Historically, China would do that. Probably it'll depend on how many influential people actually use google docs and such. I suspect not enough.
Perhaps this was Google's strategy from the beginning. Introduce useful services into the Chinese market while accepting government restrictions, then when enough Chinese have become dependent on these services, try to negotiate the restrictions from a position of strength, knowing that China would not want to be responsible for leaving Google's Chinese customers without service.
Re: A new approach to China
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I'm disgusted by the levels to which the Chinese Government can stoop." Half of the surprise I received reading this article was my shock that the Chinese government would attack profitable companies like Google. Sure, they've always attacked foreign governments, but China's government depends on US companies spending Dollars overseas. Since consumer spending is down in USA, it only seems natural for China to start…
Why are you surprised? Chinese companies steal designs and pirate US products as a matter of routine.
Because it looks like the attack is a government-based attack. As presented in the media, IP theft is par-for-the-course in China, but the only benefactors from reading the personal information of activists are those in the government, or those with strong government ties. This wasn't just a mere theft of intellectual property, this was a case of biting the hand that feeds China.
China needs money flowing into the country in order to sustain it's big growth rate. They've traditionally gotten it through dirt-cheap manufacturing costs and exports. Google's marketshare is small, but they're very well connected in the US and are probably the US company most likely to start a "China-free" product trend. If it takes hold, the US would get a little bit of extra leverage (something we've sorely been lacking lately)
Re: A new approach to China
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
For some background information: GFW research team tried heavily to crack down the SSL certificate for gmail (thus, they can censor the gmail content through GFW).
为什么美国不来个反GFW项目 你禁止国内访问外网的某些网站， 那我也以其人之道还治其人之身 把关键网站也对中国封掉，比如科技IEEE，教育，医疗等著名网站，把中国真正变成一个局域网。那时候详细国内的网民该疯了
Translation:
"Why doesn't America create an anti-GFW project. You block people in China accessing websites outside of China, so I give you your own medicine, block China from accessing some key websites, such as technology IEEE, education, medicine, and other famous websites, then China would genuinely become a local area network. Then webizens within China would genuinely go mad"
Re: A new approach to China
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
为什么美国不来个反GFW项目 你禁止国内访问外网的某些网站， 那我也以其人之道还治其人之身 把关键网站也对中国封掉，比如科技IEEE，教育，医疗等著名网站，把中国真正变成一个局域网。那时候详细国内的网民该疯了
Translation: "Why doesn't America create an anti-GFW project. You block people in China accessing websites outside of China, so I give you your own medicine, block China from accessing some key websites, such as technology IEEE, education, medicine, and other famous websites, then China would genuinely become a local area network. Then webizens within China would genuinely go mad"
The Chinese should free them by their own hands
Re: A new approach to China
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
My high school US history teacher said this (during the ramp-up to the Iraq war): "Posturing for war can be very good, actually going to war is NEVER good." The parallel here, in my mind, is that Google has an opportunity for accomplishing several things while "posturing" for war with the Chinese government: * Put pressure on the Chinese government to change. This is the public-facing goal of the campaign. The cause.…
...actually going to war is NEVER good." I wonder if African-American slaves would agree. Or West Europeans, especially those in concentration camps. Or South Koreans.
You could argue that those last two examples were suffering due to a country "actually going to war". Once that happened, there was more war to be had to return to balance.
I believe also that a large number of the slaves who ended up in America pre-Civil War were captured during tribal wars and sold, so you could argue that in fact all of your examples were caused by at least one party engaging in active violent warfare.
Re: A new approach to China
#319The US is not too far away from China in terms of human rights violations (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/Tables/4_col_tables/0,,258330,00.h... ) - Will Google pull out from other countries having similar issues? I doubt it. The reasons and consequences behind Google's decision won't be obvious, if ever, for a while.
Re: A new approach to China
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
My high school US history teacher said this (during the ramp-up to the Iraq war): "Posturing for war can be very good, actually going to war is NEVER good." The parallel here, in my mind, is that Google has an opportunity for accomplishing several things while "posturing" for war with the Chinese government: * Put pressure on the Chinese government to change. This is the public-facing goal of the campaign. The cause.…
> "Posturing for war can be very good, actually going to war is NEVER good." Does not compute. You cannot posture for war without occasionally going to war.
Saying something is never good doesn't equate to saying it never happens. And saying something can be good doesn't imply that it always is.