Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 372 posts

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#131

Post by adrianmonk »

jeremysalwen wrote: post #78
freewizard wrote: post #63

AFAICT the way Dragonfly utilizing search log to probe Great Fire Wall blacklist and skip them in results was the same way how google.cn (localized Google search in china) worked. That was a smart but arguable approach, Google was heavily criticized to present those "passively censored" results. However, no one from Google at that time did a #walkout or resign for that. Also notably Google did not quit China for the…

At least according to Sergey at the time, the key issue was "opposing censorship and speaking out for the freedom of political dissent". > Brin: I don't think it's a question of taking on China. In fact, I am a great admirer of both China and the Chinese government for the progress they have made. It is really opposing censorship and speaking out for the freedom of political dissent, and that's the key issue from our…

I always thought there were two ways to interpret that, and I was never sure which one was correct.

One is that the hack made Google realize it was not a good, stable place to do business, and the other reasons were just a good PR side effect. The other is that the hack gave Google occasion to reevaluate, and they realized being involved in that kind of censorship didn't sit right with them.

I suppose it could also be some of both.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#132

Post by justicezyx »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #120
QML wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you are one of the few people who support a re-entry of Google into China, can I ask a question? There is no doubt that a cultural gap exists between Chinese and Americans, and their perceptions of the current Chinese government. Should a foreign company like Google adopt the culture of the country they're entering, or maintain the culture of where they're headquartered? From what I've read, the main opposition…

This is an unfair argument because it's not a matter of 'culture' it's a broader set of ethical issues at stake. The Chinese are putting people into concentration camps on the basis of their ethnicity or religion, many are dying and their organs are being harvested. If the Western press weren't so hypocritically afraid of speaking out - this would be a huge global story, it's a really big deal. This is getting into h…

> The Chinese are putting people into concentration camps on the basis of their ethnicity or religion, many are dying and their organs are being harvested

A few glossy points are made here that rides on a racial or national stereotype.

1. It was Chinese government put people in concentration camp, not Chinese. In the current political atmosphere, I am very cautious to draw this line as a Chinese myself, for the fear of mobbing attacks on Chinese people oversea.

2. many are dying and their organs are being harvested

You need to have reports to support claims of such outrageous behavior. Also it's not clear what is the actual things being done.

Are people dying naturally in the camp, and got organ harvested? Or they were left to die without reasonable medical attentions.

I presume the organ extraction has not got consent from the people, right?

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#133

Post by longerthoughts »

arthur_pryor wrote: post #109
guelo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It certainly isn't a human right. Freedom of expression is in Article 19 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

why downvote this comment? i'm not saying you have to agree with it, but this seems like as universally accepted an answer to "what are basic human rights?" as any that might be given (i'm assuming there is actually no universally agreeable definition, but this seems like one of the more respectable and frequently cited sources).

I don't think the downvotes were warranted given that the comment introduced something worth discussing, but my thoughts might be in line with some of the downvoters.

Human rights are not objective truths. The entire concept is something we made up based on beliefs that we formed through the course of history and we formalized the ones that a bunch of us were able to agree upon. They are a figment of our imaginations that we buy into because they're useful tools for structuring a society that isn't absolute chaos. As a result, citing a list that the UN formalized as some sort of factual evidence is, to me, on par with citing religious texts to promote their corresponding belief systems as "correct". That's not to say the list doesn't have value, only that it's open to debate and represents beliefs rather than facts.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#134

Post by sonnyblarney »

manfredo wrote: post #124
sonnyblarney wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an unfair argument because it's not a matter of 'culture' it's a broader set of ethical issues at stake. The Chinese are putting people into concentration camps on the basis of their ethnicity or religion, many are dying and their organs are being harvested. If the Western press weren't so hypocritically afraid of speaking out - this would be a huge global story, it's a really big deal. This is getting into h…

I think pointing to different culture and history is a valid point of discussion. The point of view of a lot of the mainland Chinese people I've spoken to is that the post-Mao CCP has done a lot of bad, but also an immense amount of good for China as a whole. Compare the modern CCP with all of China's past governments of the last two centuries, and it's unambiguously better than Mao, the warlords, or the late Quing d…

I don't doubt that there are cultural differences, and that 'good has been done' in the past, surely there is a cultural context.

And FYI - any otherwise civilized place that was held back by totalitarian communists, or ruined by war was able to 'bounce back'.

All of Europe was in ruin in 1945 - they also grew by 'leaps and bounds' after that time. China just had to wait for Mao to die.

More poignantly - none of this can dismiss much of the abuse - it cannot be written of as 'cultural difference'.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#135

Post by russdpale »

srkmno wrote: post #98

Never really understood why Google running a search engine in China is controversial, it wouldn't be the first US company doing business there, nor the first to censor due to local laws (Apple censors their app store etc) and it's not like tiananmen square queries will be the bulk of their traffic.

I don't know how old you are, but google blossomed under the guise of "do no evil", that is why its controversial.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#136

Post by sonnyblarney »

justicezyx wrote: post #132
sonnyblarney wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an unfair argument because it's not a matter of 'culture' it's a broader set of ethical issues at stake. The Chinese are putting people into concentration camps on the basis of their ethnicity or religion, many are dying and their organs are being harvested. If the Western press weren't so hypocritically afraid of speaking out - this would be a huge global story, it's a really big deal. This is getting into h…

> The Chinese are putting people into concentration camps on the basis of their ethnicity or religion, many are dying and their organs are being harvested A few glossy points are made here that rides on a racial or national stereotype. 1. It was Chinese government put people in concentration camp, not Chinese. In the current political atmosphere, I am very cautious to draw this line as a Chinese myself, for the fear…

#1 is a good point, but in my experience, 'The Governments' approach to Tibetans, Uighurs etc. has the general tacit support of 'The Chinese' and by that I should say 'Han'. Han ethno-nationalism is total and out in the open, it's normative. I suggest most of non-minority China actually supports much of this.

As far as #2, it's splitting hairs. People are put in jail because of their ethnicity or faith, and one way or another, organs are being harvested on mass. Discussions of 'did the prisoners approve of their dismemberment after execution' are just a little insulting really.

It's 2018, this is happening.

http://eng.the-liberty.com/2018/7286/

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#137

Post by manfredo »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #134
manfredo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think pointing to different culture and history is a valid point of discussion. The point of view of a lot of the mainland Chinese people I've spoken to is that the post-Mao CCP has done a lot of bad, but also an immense amount of good for China as a whole. Compare the modern CCP with all of China's past governments of the last two centuries, and it's unambiguously better than Mao, the warlords, or the late Quing d…

I don't doubt that there are cultural differences, and that 'good has been done' in the past, surely there is a cultural context. And FYI - any otherwise civilized place that was held back by totalitarian communists, or ruined by war was able to 'bounce back'. All of Europe was in ruin in 1945 - they also grew by 'leaps and bounds' after that time. China just had to wait for Mao to die. More poignantly - none of this…

I think you're missing the point. Ask the question "What is the most effective way of curbing sectarian violence?". Both Chinese and Westerners agree that sectarian violence is bad - that's the same underlying ethical value. But the answer to that question will probably differ. At least in the US we try to curb sectarian violence by promoting tolerance and integration. Historically that had worked pretty well for us, we haven't seen much sectarian violence outside of small scale acts of terror and regional conflict (e.g. fights with early Mormon settlers). China, on the other hand, has lost 30 million people due to a religious rebellion in the 19th century. A staggering figure, exceeding even China's WWII casualties. Furthermore, the Holocaust did not occur in Asia (at least the overwhelming majority of it occurred in Europe) so concentration and surveillance of religious minorities does not strike the same nerve.

With that history, I think a person can genuinely, earnestly believe that the CCP's policy towards Uhigyrs or Falun Gong is limiting human suffering in the grand scheme of things. This is what I mean when I say that it's possible to have the same underlying values, but people from different societies can come up with drastically different or even conflicting implementations.

This is moral relativism to a degree. But empathy is an exercise in relativism. I don't like what China is doing to it's religious minorities, and I don't want this post to come off as trying to justify it. But if we do want to convince the country to change it's ways I think it's important to see why the country is doing what it is, and not pick an easy conclusion like saying China or the CCP is immoral.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#138

Post by icebraining »

ganzuul wrote: post #103
sunstone wrote: post #61

It seems Google has now strayed far from the "don't be evil" path. First came the illegal agreement not to hire from other tech companies, then the "say nothing to no one" employment agreement all employees have to sign and now this product the help Mr. Xi put the jack boot to every neck in China. I've probably missed a few, please fill in the blanks if you can. To a large extent Google's business, like Enron's befor…

Less colored than your take, but; Each time they cancel a beta, a vast amount of engineering work gets laid to waste. These engineers could be making the world a better place in other industries.

Other industries cancel products too. Something like 80% of all drugs that start being test never make it to market, for example. Other industries will have multiple draft proposals being drawn up, often at great cost, only to dismiss all except one.

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#139

Post by sparkie »

praptak wrote: post #85
yadongwen wrote: post #79

This is a great loss to Chinese people who have to use worse products such as Baidu and so.com. I was hoping Google's re-entering could result in a better Internet (or Intranet) ecosystem in China but alas...

Maybe Chinese people could take it up with their government?

Chinese cannot even type "I disagree" on social media without it being censored.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJc4KgBCdoM

Re: Google’s Secret China Project “Effectively Ended” After Internal Confrontation

#140

Post by snaky »

sunstone wrote: post #61

It seems Google has now strayed far from the "don't be evil" path. First came the illegal agreement not to hire from other tech companies, then the "say nothing to no one" employment agreement all employees have to sign and now this product the help Mr. Xi put the jack boot to every neck in China. I've probably missed a few, please fill in the blanks if you can. To a large extent Google's business, like Enron's befor…

Google's business depends largely on technologies and useful tools for the users and customers. The trust is somewhat involved too - users think Google won't do horrible things with their data - and Google won't (selling the data to the advertising industry is not considered horrible by Google' users). Customers think Google won't do horrible things to them too, as do shareholders, and they are obviously right. So a reasonable amount of trust involved, but it's not about China.
Post reply on HN