Google, do not take Chinese netizens hostage(english.people.com.cn)
english.people.com.cn
Google, do not take Chinese netizens hostage
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/91344/6873383.html
46 comments
Chinese here.
This kind of BS derives from a more common theory: Chinese people don't deserve democracy because they are not well educated. It's stated on many official newspapers and comments. TFA is just a little elaboration. You can find even funnier nonsense everyday everywhere from Chinese politics news.
The CCP behavior is hilarious to watch, Internet users in China loving posting pre-1949 propaganda from CCP, something like Xinhua Daily says 'One-party rule is disastrous'.
Here's an example
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=1946%20%E6%96%B0%E5%8D%8E%E...
This kind of BS derives from a more common theory: Chinese people don't deserve democracy because they are not well educated. It's stated on many official newspapers and comments. TFA is just a little elaboration. You can find even funnier nonsense everyday everywhere from Chinese politics news.
The CCP behavior is hilarious to watch, Internet users in China loving posting pre-1949 propaganda from CCP, something like Xinhua Daily says 'One-party rule is disastrous'.
Here's an example
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=1946%20%E6%96%B0%E5%8D%8E%E...
The saddest part is I know many Chinese in my age group who would cheer this article on, and commend the author for having the courage to stand up to American imperialism.
I think many of us expected popular support for the Communist regime to drop over time - but we're seeing the opposite, and that's gravely concerning.
I think many of us expected popular support for the Communist regime to drop over time - but we're seeing the opposite, and that's gravely concerning.
I think a surprising number of your friends (and mine) are probably driven by nationalism. I'm not a big fan of nationalism, and don't swing any particular way when it comes to race or country. I do however actively support specific policies and ideas.
But particularly for minorities in countries nationalism provides an easy way for self-identity. You'd want to be able to be proud of some specific fact about yourself and unfortunately nationality is a particularly easy way for minorities like the Chinese (in the US) to do this.
And so this easily leads to American raised Chinese to jump on board supporting their home country. The alternative is to admit that their special home country needs advice from the US. Perhaps they weren't properly (or weren't in the US long enough) brainwashed to accept democracy, but something is causing them to think that they understand the complex policies better than the rest of the developed world simply because they lived there once.
I also know a Chinese international student in Canada for college who insists that I am brainwashed by the west. I think that's a pretty bold statement since it pretty much implies that I was too stupid to distinguish the noise from the truths when I learn shit, since the fundamental difference between the democratic world and the communist world is that in the democratic world the truth is always there no matter how much shit is piled on top of it and in the communist world they just pile shit on your face and actively try to hold the truths out of reach.
I think with the silly gaffs like the little girl who was lip syncing at the olympics that the CCP is still tripping over itself on universally backwards policies, and that all this is not just a case of the west trying to assert its cultural differences onto China.
But particularly for minorities in countries nationalism provides an easy way for self-identity. You'd want to be able to be proud of some specific fact about yourself and unfortunately nationality is a particularly easy way for minorities like the Chinese (in the US) to do this.
And so this easily leads to American raised Chinese to jump on board supporting their home country. The alternative is to admit that their special home country needs advice from the US. Perhaps they weren't properly (or weren't in the US long enough) brainwashed to accept democracy, but something is causing them to think that they understand the complex policies better than the rest of the developed world simply because they lived there once.
I also know a Chinese international student in Canada for college who insists that I am brainwashed by the west. I think that's a pretty bold statement since it pretty much implies that I was too stupid to distinguish the noise from the truths when I learn shit, since the fundamental difference between the democratic world and the communist world is that in the democratic world the truth is always there no matter how much shit is piled on top of it and in the communist world they just pile shit on your face and actively try to hold the truths out of reach.
I think with the silly gaffs like the little girl who was lip syncing at the olympics that the CCP is still tripping over itself on universally backwards policies, and that all this is not just a case of the west trying to assert its cultural differences onto China.
Same here. Oddly it seems the older generation was much more flexible in their thinking.
What's interesting is how agile the CCP has become. We call it 'communist' but it no longer resembles any of the Marxist ideals we usually associate with it. They react quickly and have been using capitalism/modernization/nation-building as a very effective carrot. This isn't the old stagnant hard-line Soviet communism by any measure.
What's interesting is how agile the CCP has become. We call it 'communist' but it no longer resembles any of the Marxist ideals we usually associate with it. They react quickly and have been using capitalism/modernization/nation-building as a very effective carrot. This isn't the old stagnant hard-line Soviet communism by any measure.
I don't think anyone seriously believes that China is a communist country (in practice). It's a good old-fashioned dictatorship.
While I agree with the idea that democracy will not work properly on an uneducated population, I think that's no longer true in China, and instead of relaxing it's controls, China's increasing them.
I think perhaps the arrogance is from the Chinese side in not wanting to be told what to do, and not from the rest of the developed world. If they really do not want to learn and borrow from the developed world, they should stop pirating western films and music and stop stealing western technological advancements as well as rejecting developed political advancements like freedom of information that conveniently happens to weaken the grip of the CCP.
They clearly admit they are developing, then what other reason would they have to reject the advice of developed nations except to push away the specific advancements that could potentially disturb the balance of power.
The Chinese is stance is highly arrogant and hypocritical.
I think perhaps the arrogance is from the Chinese side in not wanting to be told what to do, and not from the rest of the developed world. If they really do not want to learn and borrow from the developed world, they should stop pirating western films and music and stop stealing western technological advancements as well as rejecting developed political advancements like freedom of information that conveniently happens to weaken the grip of the CCP.
They clearly admit they are developing, then what other reason would they have to reject the advice of developed nations except to push away the specific advancements that could potentially disturb the balance of power.
The Chinese is stance is highly arrogant and hypocritical.
[deleted]
"Such politicization was not provoked by China, but imposed by the U.S. and the west onto China."
Wow, this isn't even good propaganda. I wrote better BS than this for class papers. More believable, anyway.
I guess I should detail a rebuttal. China engaged in an act of war (attack) on a private company, Grossly unethical should not go ignored, and certainly not cooperated with. If the people of China don't like the outcome, they should consider what their government is doing. If you shoot at me, don't be surprised if I stop coming by your house. Sorry if the other members of your household don't like it.
Wow, this isn't even good propaganda. I wrote better BS than this for class papers. More believable, anyway.
I guess I should detail a rebuttal. China engaged in an act of war (attack) on a private company, Grossly unethical should not go ignored, and certainly not cooperated with. If the people of China don't like the outcome, they should consider what their government is doing. If you shoot at me, don't be surprised if I stop coming by your house. Sorry if the other members of your household don't like it.
I noticed that no where in the article is there any mention of the actual reason that Google came out with this announcement (i.e. they were (cyber) attacked by sources that were presumably linked with the Chinese government). It seems to only be talking about censorship and comparing China to other Western countries.
To be fair, the author perhaps does allude indirectly to the attacks by trying to point out a perceived hypocrisy of Google being willing to operate under the patriot act:
To combat terrorism after the "9/11" terrorist attack, the U.S. has permitted police to search civilian emails and even monitor their communications without permission
A related post in the side-links does opine on the attacks directly though: Google probes inside job in hackings.
To combat terrorism after the "9/11" terrorist attack, the U.S. has permitted police to search civilian emails and even monitor their communications without permission
A related post in the side-links does opine on the attacks directly though: Google probes inside job in hackings.
I'm not quite sure what it means to say the U.S. has "permitted police to monitor communications without permission". Was it permitted or not?
This is why logic is taught in China only when you are learning how to write an essay in GRE.
It's the author's way of explaining the Patriot act, that the FBI are allowed to monitor communications without seeking the permission of a court.
Google didn't explicitly say this is the reason. They talked about censorship and doing business in China.
I don't think they needed to say it. Everyone knew who they were talking about.
Perhaps, but you can't blame "The Chinese" responding to what they said at face value.
I live in china. I have lived here for 11 years. I am western. I have friends who are in Shanghai and Beijing they are fully Chinese and either own companies or are judges or (sometimes) criminals. At no time and in now way have these people been shy about criticizing the government or swearing at the traffic jams created by state visits etc. At no time have I seen or experienced censorship. In many drunken evenings or in business meetings any and all topics are discussed openly. There are rules however, yes, the government needs to be involved in things. Yes it can act in unusual ways - for example banning online games. (seemingly because one high level official did not like the amount of time their son was spending on WoW.) Yes minorities are persecuted and yes they shoot criminals. It's is a long way from perfect. But... 1.3 billion people. There are 12 cities in china with a pop of more than 5 million (in the city local area) . These cities have highly complex local governments which do not always follow the central government. China is a lot less one country than it seems and it is certainly not policed or controlled with any obvious force.
In many ways it is also free. Sometime more free than other places.. this may sound weird but Hong Kong is again the freest place to do business in the World. It is many regions, many languages and cultures. As in the US, the government is distinct from the people. And the government has a hard job keeping it together. The only thing I agree with in the article is that going the Russian way would be bad for China. As for Google... as always the real story is probably much different from the one told by either side. But i am more inclined to believe it is something silly rather than serious.
Perhaps Google's decisions have nothing to do with ideology. Perhaps they are legitimately concerned about IP theft and security, and are simply exiting china in the most PR friendly way possible.
I find it highly ironic that their criticism implores that Google "stop launching surprise attacks against China." Also very interesting is how Google's recent actions are viewed as some sort of US government-sponsored attempt to export US values.
Ok. A devil's advocate question. If US government can monitor US citizen's emails, why shouldn't Chinese govt monitor the emails of Chinese citizens? Of course, there is difference in what the monitoring will lead to in the 2 cases, but the ability to monitor is what it is. right?
In China you would not be able to report on or criticize the monitoring, nor could you take legal action against it. In fact you could be thrown in jail for years just for complaining. In the United States and many other countries you would be free to challenge the government in a court of law and the government would have to defend their actions. It doesn't necessarily mean that they would lose their case, but a citizen can confront the state.
Neither of them should. China, in using the US as precedent for doing so, is merely finding an excuse for something it wanted to do anyways - this is not a situation of looking at the US and trying to match capabilities, as you seem to be implying (if the US installed death collars on all citizens, would other nations have some reason to keep up with US capabilities, and therefor need to institute their own death collar plan?)
> why shouldn't Chinese govt monitor the emails of Chinese citizens?
At least the US had a freaking law about the action. The prc government on the other hand, plays trinity in market: rule maker, judge, and player.
There's a joke on twitter, the government rape you, then sue you for prostitution
At least the US had a freaking law about the action. The prc government on the other hand, plays trinity in market: rule maker, judge, and player.
There's a joke on twitter, the government rape you, then sue you for prostitution
> At least the US had a freaking law about the action
Not on wire tapping, they made a law afterward though to forgive everyone.
Not on wire tapping, they made a law afterward though to forgive everyone.
"The Chinese society has generally less information bearing capacity than developed countries such as the U.S., which is an objective reality that no one can deny."
I suggest we take news from People's Daily - the official list of Communist Party of China - with a grain of salt.
It's interesting to read their spin.
During historical conflicts between the US and nations that didn't have freedom of the press, there are countless stories of the other side's government believing that because their own media was a total sham, regardless of our statements to the contrary, our own media must therefore be full of lies.
The common response to this sort of story is to laugh and say how little they understood the power of a truly free press. And this is true for its part, but it is also true that there is goverment and now corporate propaganda mixed into the "reputable" news. Not of the same scale or variety, but it is there nonetheless.
The common response to this sort of story is to laugh and say how little they understood the power of a truly free press. And this is true for its part, but it is also true that there is goverment and now corporate propaganda mixed into the "reputable" news. Not of the same scale or variety, but it is there nonetheless.
Our media has the tremendous courage to paraphrase Government and Corporate press releases in inverted-pyramid form instead of simply reprinting them. I'm sure you've noticed how unbelievably bad science reporting is, but I don't think you realize that most other subjects are even worse.
They're all stenographers, from the hungriest PR flack to Woodward and Bernstein (they were spoonfed everything by the fucking FBI!).
They're all stenographers, from the hungriest PR flack to Woodward and Bernstein (they were spoonfed everything by the fucking FBI!).
I think you overestimate the truthfulness of our mainstream free press and cable news media.
Unless you consider about the fact they've totally ignored the gmail hacking incident and the various espionage activities.
"Therefore, implementing monitoring according to a country's national context is what any government has to do."
There are two big questions:
1) What legitimizes a government to to define "national context" and the will of the people? Or simply, what legitimizes government?
2) If government is legitimate, what are the limits of its mandate where an individual's fundamental rights are concerned?
Western governments can claim to express the will of the people because it is the people who have elected them (directly or indirectly). The Chinese government's power is based on a military campaign many decades ago. It cannot claim to speak for the chinese people. The laws it makes are nothing but the the will of a clique of people with guns.
The second question is a very difficult one. Where do fundamental individual rights come from? Who defines them with any legitimacy? Does it have something to do with nature or psychology or are the relative to culture? I don't know, but I do know that I want to claim individual rights independently of any collective expression of opinion and power, and everyone else I know wants to do that as well.
If western governments run a system of censorship it may in many cases be a violation of fundamental individual rights. That doesn't change the fact that it may at the same time be a legitimate expression of the will of the people. It may be the will of the people to violate fundamental individual rights. That's the contradiction we in the west have to grapple with, and it's totally different from the problem the Chinese have with their clique of men with guns holding them hostage.
There are two big questions:
1) What legitimizes a government to to define "national context" and the will of the people? Or simply, what legitimizes government?
2) If government is legitimate, what are the limits of its mandate where an individual's fundamental rights are concerned?
Western governments can claim to express the will of the people because it is the people who have elected them (directly or indirectly). The Chinese government's power is based on a military campaign many decades ago. It cannot claim to speak for the chinese people. The laws it makes are nothing but the the will of a clique of people with guns.
The second question is a very difficult one. Where do fundamental individual rights come from? Who defines them with any legitimacy? Does it have something to do with nature or psychology or are the relative to culture? I don't know, but I do know that I want to claim individual rights independently of any collective expression of opinion and power, and everyone else I know wants to do that as well.
If western governments run a system of censorship it may in many cases be a violation of fundamental individual rights. That doesn't change the fact that it may at the same time be a legitimate expression of the will of the people. It may be the will of the people to violate fundamental individual rights. That's the contradiction we in the west have to grapple with, and it's totally different from the problem the Chinese have with their clique of men with guns holding them hostage.
This article equates censorship to surveillance. I don't want to say one is worse than the other, but it's kind of apples and oranges, and makes her argument about the US irrelevant - not to mention that she either wasn't aware or was ignoring the fact that GOOG is leaving because partly it is sick of being the target of gov't intel efforts.
Censorship isn't possible without surveillance, at the very least someone caring enough to act to censor when they observe something, and the only reason for surveillance is to control actions, which is censorship. Of course, these can be used for "good", surveillance like security cameras that document who approaches your house, and censorship like parents controlling what their kids watch on television, but I'm not so sure that you can have one without the other. If there is no censorship, there is no reason to survey, if there is no surveillance, attempts at censorship will be ineffective.
I see at more as akin to
> Asking for permission
versus
> Asking for forgiveness rather than permission
With censorship you are prevented from obtaining information, with surveillance you (might) be punished for obtaining information afterwards. If the only reason for surveillance is to control actions (which is censorship), then do you define all law enforcement as censorship? We're kind of digressing, but my point was that it's ridiculous to assert that surveillance of US international calls is worse than not allowing your entire country to surf wikipedia...
> Asking for permission
versus
> Asking for forgiveness rather than permission
With censorship you are prevented from obtaining information, with surveillance you (might) be punished for obtaining information afterwards. If the only reason for surveillance is to control actions (which is censorship), then do you define all law enforcement as censorship? We're kind of digressing, but my point was that it's ridiculous to assert that surveillance of US international calls is worse than not allowing your entire country to surf wikipedia...
Since the site is currently down, I had to view the cached Google copy... Chrome recommended it...
my favorite part is where the article suggests that google should "stop launching surprise attacks". what did they expect?
Apparently nothing. :)
The title of the article is oddly chosen. Google's customers can only be held 'hostage' by actions taken by the Chinese government. Google is not ceasing to allow customers access to vital data or services - they're simply refusing to follow the arbitrary guidelines set in place by China, and China is blocking access to Google services in response.
So, I agree - Google definitely shouldn't take Chinese netizens or their data as hostages. That's the job of the Chinese government.
This also illustrates how Google's earlier actions (doing business in China in hopes of encouraging the nation to 'open up') have had the opposite effect: Google has handed China a highly effective bargaining chip in the form of their customers' data. If Google had never offered these services in the first place, it would be impossible for their customers to be 'held hostage' by the Chinese government.
To some extent this situation is different for Microsoft - Ballmer was somewhat correct to say in recent discussion that his company has no reason to withdraw from China. The Chinese government has no easy way to hold his customers' data hostage - once you've installed Windows and Microsoft Word onto your PC, it's going to keep working and letting you access your data unless you do something to change that (like connecting to the internet or installing Green Dam), regardless of any disagreement Microsoft may have with your local government. It is only Google's heavy reliance on 'the cloud' for storing users' data that makes this possible.
So, I agree - Google definitely shouldn't take Chinese netizens or their data as hostages. That's the job of the Chinese government.
This also illustrates how Google's earlier actions (doing business in China in hopes of encouraging the nation to 'open up') have had the opposite effect: Google has handed China a highly effective bargaining chip in the form of their customers' data. If Google had never offered these services in the first place, it would be impossible for their customers to be 'held hostage' by the Chinese government.
To some extent this situation is different for Microsoft - Ballmer was somewhat correct to say in recent discussion that his company has no reason to withdraw from China. The Chinese government has no easy way to hold his customers' data hostage - once you've installed Windows and Microsoft Word onto your PC, it's going to keep working and letting you access your data unless you do something to change that (like connecting to the internet or installing Green Dam), regardless of any disagreement Microsoft may have with your local government. It is only Google's heavy reliance on 'the cloud' for storing users' data that makes this possible.
"Several days before Google declared that it planned to withdraw from China, the U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton held a small evening dinner party. The guests she invited were just the leaders of the powerful information enterprises such as the Microsoft, Twitter and Google. The two affairs were so close that people would unavoidably think they were connected. After this political affliction, Google has already made itself in an awkward situation. If it withdraws from China, it will lose a market consisting of 360 million netizens; if it does not, it will be hijacked by the U.S. government."
So the People's Daily is accusing a US corporation of being a tool of the US government.
Don't I fucking wish.
So the People's Daily is accusing a US corporation of being a tool of the US government.
Don't I fucking wish.
Bottom line - Baidu outclassed them and they needed to find a way to get out without losing face or having to explain why they were in second place in the largest internet market in the world.
Every other US company has been able to survive except whiny little Google: "Boo hoo, they stole my IP"! Tell that to GE, who are doing just fine in China, thank you very much, IP or no IP.
Google should grow some *alls, stand and fight, or gracefully admit defeat instead of whining.
Every other US company has been able to survive except whiny little Google: "Boo hoo, they stole my IP"! Tell that to GE, who are doing just fine in China, thank you very much, IP or no IP.
Google should grow some *alls, stand and fight, or gracefully admit defeat instead of whining.
Typical Chinese train of thought - from one Chinese guy to another, drop the macho hyper-aggressive posturing, it's not sexy, and the chicks don't dig it.
I did find one point interesting though, and I'm assuming you're a young, internet-savvy Chinese guy:
> "Every other US company has been able to survive except whiny little Google"
Does this include the myriad of US websites that have been blatantly ripped off by Chinese domestic companies? I'm assuming you're a user of Xiaonei (an almost verbatim clone of Facebook, including UI and page design, even color scheme) - can you defend the blatantly unoriginal, downright thieving tactics of Chinese tech companies when it comes to "competing" with their American counterparts? Perhaps this Chinese "outclassing" of yours is simply because many Chinese companies never put in the resources to develop anything of their own, preferring to steal and pilfer instead.
Perhaps Google is leaving because, as every other nation (not only the West) knows, the Chinese as a whole have fundamentally no respect for hard work. As a Chinese I am ashamed to admit this, but the truth deserves to be told regardless of how it reflects on my people: Chinese culture has no respect for the work of others, and ripping off is so normal that one hardly bats an eyelash. Whatever Google does in China will merely be copied verbatim, there's almost no point in staying in a market where all of your hard work counts for just about nothing, and there's no rule of law to protect this work from unscrupulous thieves.
[edit] Also, the only reason GE is "doing fine" is because nobody's yet figured out how to clone entire power plants. Look at companies like Apple, who originally had to import iPhone screens from Germany to avoid having the designs stolen and sold to the highest bidder by merely manufacturing it in China. This is embarrassing and shameful to me as a Chinese - we are rightfully known as a nation that cannot be trusted, cannot be respectful of what is rightfully someone else's. We are known globally as a nation of unscrupulous people who will throw away all semblance of civility and justice to succeed - I am ashamed to be associated with this, but yet it does reflect our business culture very accurately.
Instead of constantly looking at every move like a threat against China, and instead of looking at everyone like an enemy, perhaps China's greatest enemy is itself: we are overly aggressive, we always seek to win by someone else's destruction, and we seem incapable of forming transactions where one side doesn't get screwed. We are not team players, and this is going to be a very severe limitation on the advancement of China as a whole until we culturally un-fuck ourselves. Drop the constant victim complex - not everyone is out to get you.
I did find one point interesting though, and I'm assuming you're a young, internet-savvy Chinese guy:
> "Every other US company has been able to survive except whiny little Google"
Does this include the myriad of US websites that have been blatantly ripped off by Chinese domestic companies? I'm assuming you're a user of Xiaonei (an almost verbatim clone of Facebook, including UI and page design, even color scheme) - can you defend the blatantly unoriginal, downright thieving tactics of Chinese tech companies when it comes to "competing" with their American counterparts? Perhaps this Chinese "outclassing" of yours is simply because many Chinese companies never put in the resources to develop anything of their own, preferring to steal and pilfer instead.
Perhaps Google is leaving because, as every other nation (not only the West) knows, the Chinese as a whole have fundamentally no respect for hard work. As a Chinese I am ashamed to admit this, but the truth deserves to be told regardless of how it reflects on my people: Chinese culture has no respect for the work of others, and ripping off is so normal that one hardly bats an eyelash. Whatever Google does in China will merely be copied verbatim, there's almost no point in staying in a market where all of your hard work counts for just about nothing, and there's no rule of law to protect this work from unscrupulous thieves.
[edit] Also, the only reason GE is "doing fine" is because nobody's yet figured out how to clone entire power plants. Look at companies like Apple, who originally had to import iPhone screens from Germany to avoid having the designs stolen and sold to the highest bidder by merely manufacturing it in China. This is embarrassing and shameful to me as a Chinese - we are rightfully known as a nation that cannot be trusted, cannot be respectful of what is rightfully someone else's. We are known globally as a nation of unscrupulous people who will throw away all semblance of civility and justice to succeed - I am ashamed to be associated with this, but yet it does reflect our business culture very accurately.
Instead of constantly looking at every move like a threat against China, and instead of looking at everyone like an enemy, perhaps China's greatest enemy is itself: we are overly aggressive, we always seek to win by someone else's destruction, and we seem incapable of forming transactions where one side doesn't get screwed. We are not team players, and this is going to be a very severe limitation on the advancement of China as a whole until we culturally un-fuck ourselves. Drop the constant victim complex - not everyone is out to get you.
Right.
Going from 0% market share to >30% in a couple of years is losing. Google was gaining. They had their most profitable quarter in China this last quarter.
If by outclassed you mean being the best search engine for finding pirated software and music, I guess you have a point.
But yeah, keep spinning it :)
Going from 0% market share to >30% in a couple of years is losing. Google was gaining. They had their most profitable quarter in China this last quarter.
If by outclassed you mean being the best search engine for finding pirated software and music, I guess you have a point.
But yeah, keep spinning it :)
The concept of societal "information bearing capacity" blows my mind. What a fascinating and bizarre rationalization. So inside that mindset, preventing access to information is a a public service!