Hacker News Reader

Comment by boundlessdreamz | Hacker News Reader

This is incredible. This is the first time, I have seen a LARGE company

* Putting its users above profits

* Stand up to Chinese Government.

Since accounts of human rights activists were targeted, this operation was clearly done at the behest of Chinese Government. I'm disgusted by the levels to which the Chinese Government can stoop.

It is time the world stands up to China. If a corporation, whose main aim is to generate profits can eschew it and take a moral high ground why can't the government do it? Are the cheap goods from china so necessary that it is not worth antagonizing China ?

EDIT: Additional details from Enterprise blog post http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2010/01/keeping-your-da...

It was an attack on the technology infrastructure of major corporations in sectors as diverse as finance, technology, media, and chemical

This is clearly an act of espionage by the Chinese Government. The bigger questions is whether these are the only companies targeted or the only ones discovered. This is not the first time, the chinese have tried something like this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7970471.stm

The researchers said hackers were apparently able to take control of computers belonging to several foreign ministries and embassies across the world using malicious software

View on HN

I am so proud of Google right now. It's hard to contain. It is high time somoene stood up to China and let them know enough is enough. I sincerely hope other corporations follow suit.

As I mentioned elsewhere, I am sure there is more to the story than is being let on now. I could only imagine the level of corporate espionage that is in play between China and Google. Good for Google calling them on it and making a broad public move.

As far as I'm concerned, Google has just turned me into a lifelong user.

> I could only imagine the level of corporate espionage that is in play between China and Google.

I'm not sure these types of interactions can still be described as corporate espionage. The fact that one of these parties is a sovereign nation creates wrinkle to this whole thing. (From what I understand China doesn't directly link themselves too closely with this but no one really thinks this isn't covert stuff being directed by their government.)

It's further muddled because China is a sovereign nation with significant corporate holdings.

Governments are basically corporations with varying degrees of public ownership that have monopolies on societal goods. I would consider this corporate espionage.

The US also engages in corporate espionage through the NSA in the interest of its defense contractors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency#ECHELO... (last paragraph)

> I am so proud of Google right now.

I am too, but I think we should remember that China's citizens were and still are being censored, killed, and tortured on a daily basis. Google was fine doing business with them and even assisting in their censorship. Only until Google found itself on the receiving end of China's baton did it finally decide to change their relationship.

They deserve kudos and a pat on the back for realizing that it's not good to bow down and comply with a government that tortures and locks up its citizens for speaking their minds, but they don't deserve any sort of hero worship.

I agree with all of what you've said. The skeptic in me thinks that Google is using this attack as an excuse to offset the PR disaster when Schmidt said the if you have something to hide maybe you shouldn't be doing it speech.

Google is using this attack as an excuse to offset the PR disaster when Schmidt said the if you have something to hide maybe you shouldn't be doing it speech.

That's just insane... do you really think the two are comprable? Google would lose more customers by withdrawing from China than people who know, much less care in the least, about that quote...

That's just insane... do you really think the two are comprable?

1. Google is not withdrawing from China. They are merely deciding not to implement additional censoring measures to curry additional favor with the government.

2. They have been losing market share to an inferior but government approved search engine Baidu.

Why do you think Google China's Kai-fu Lee left after a few years in his highest position to make a relatively small startup when his track record shows he prefers large corporations like Apple, SGI, and Microsoft? Google knows they are losing ground and he was probably abandoning the sinking ship.

Another year of lost market share to government supported Baidu and the recent espionage was the last straw for Google to know that their current methods weren't working.

3. Why are you comparing them then? It's not like Google decided to make this happen so they could publicly denounce the Chinese government.

Considering their past practices with China, I would have expected them to keep silent on the matter. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the Schmidt incident influenced the scale of their reaction.

If you think Schmidt's quote did not make a big impact , that's your opinion, not fact.

I think you are probably partially correct in the sense that a company as large as Google is not comprised of one single personality. The decision making voices in Google could well run the spectrum from those advocating a moral line in the sand all the way to those bottom liners that were convinced that an action like this could well have enough PR upside to offset any potential losses in the Chinese market.

Please read the article to the end: "We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.". So no, they aren't willing to censor more. Wether they have more market share is an entirely different matter. It's about the decision to pull out of China. This could be the right or the wrong decision, only the future knows, but the decision has a big symbolic significance, that's what everyone is astonished about.

I did read the article to the end, and I find no fault with what I said.

They haven't decided to pull out completely from China yet. They simply said they might, and their main focus was to stop censoring as much as they can "within the law".

I am really surprised that you have been voted so highly as though you and many other readers here mistakenly interpreted this as an absolute sign that Google is going to withdraw from China.

Your interpretation is incorrect. Google have quite clearly stated that they are no longer willing to accept any censorship of their search results on Google.cn and that they are prepared to shut down their operations in China if it's not possible to legally run Google.cn without filters. As it seems unlikely that the Chinese government will permit Google to operate such an unfiltered search engine, Google is effectively announcing its exit from the Chinese market.

My interpretation is entirely correct. As of now, Google has not yet voluntarily withdrawn google.cn from the internet.

Just because you think it is sure sign that Google will withdraw does not mean that they will. So far this is nothing more than an empty threat.

Is this perhaps a misinterpretation of "within the law"?

"[...] over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all."

They talk of filtering as an all-or-nothing concept. They want to operate unfiltered search (not semi-filtered, or filtered to the extent of the law). "Within the law" refers to the fact that they want to accomplish unfiltered search in a manner that is legal and their statement is rather clear that failing that they will be shutting down.

You're right, though, that this being an ultimatum isn't stated in clear (binding) legalese—quintessentially their wording of "not willing to continue" instead of "will not continue". This is almost certainly intentional.

However, it is a press release that declares intent, generates expectations and has a common and obvious interpretation as a take-it-or-leave-it deal. From a public relations standpoint, Google would not benefit from doing something completely different.

In regards to Kai-Fu Lee: his track record might be one of large corporations but now he spots an opportunity to capitalize on it and start something that will net him much more than working for a big corp ever could.

In China, business is like no other place. It is fully about connections and relationships and Lee is a unique individual -- he has connections from his days at all the major corps (Microsoft, Google) and finally he is using them for his benefit. If it takes off, he could be incredibly rich -- much more than the $10 million Google was (rumored) paying him. If not, he can always go back to any big corp: they will be falling all over themselves to have him.

Point being: you cannot correlate Lee's departure with a their projected performance.

Except that's not what he said, so...

> Only until Google found itself on the receiving end of China's baton did it finally decide to change their relationship.

Maybe Google is lying to us, but what they were saying is originally it was 'well, even if censored, we can still be a positive factor'. Now they are saying, 'our presence is being abused by the gov't. We are now a negative factor'.

I'm sure they aren't giddy about getting hacked, but if not getting hacked was their primary goal, I doubt complete withdraw from China would be move #1

I don't remember an instance of Google responding to the Chinese government request of information.

They did follow the government guideline and censored their results but that's a very minor problem compared to the good Google did by just giving access to better english based information than Baidu for example.

All of this is not question of black and white and I respect Google a lot more than Yahoo based on the way they behave (Yahoo did help directly to the arrest of a political activist in China see: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/technology/19yahoo.html)

I love that they made this announcement via a press release on their blog and not an 'exclusive interview' with a specific news outlet.

Be careful there, your commitment is no different from the conviction of a nationalist approving one's government's actions no matter what is done.

You being critical of Google is the only thing guaranteed to keep them in check.

The correct time to criticize organizations to keep them in check is when they have done something worthy of criticism. On the other hand, when they have done things worthy of praise, celebrating them is at worst a no op.

Mainly talking about his "lifelong user" statement.

Companies are fluid entities, constantly morphing and changing. Praising the action is where the focus should be, not the company.

And it started. Major news sites in China start to filter out this news which has been heavily reported several hours ago. I expected all Google service will be blocked by the end of today.

Edit: maybe not that soon. A second thought, current news block may be interpreted as a "saving face" for Google. China high officials may have that kind of thought and think it is for Google's own benefits so that they can still discuss with Chinese gov. Otherwise if it is spread, there is no room for discussion.

I'm not sure they can just block all Google services all of a sudden. What about mail. What about docs. What about turning off your Google Adwords account.

Why on earth is this comment being downmodded? Netscan makes a completely valid point. What China should, in my opinion, do is slowly phase google out; throttle traffic to google's servers and then release some news articles with false statements from google that they can't support the traffic.

Getting the people of China to willfully abandon Google would be good in the eyes of the Chinese government.

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 that suddenly even if they do plan to eventually block all of Google's stuff.

I took "al' Google service" to mean all the different Google products.

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.

What happens to "Mr Small Chinese Exporter" is never a concern for such a government like the Chinese one ...

I disagree.

The Atlantic's James Fallows ran a piece last year about how the Great Firewall works. Long read, but quite interesting.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200803/chinese-firewall

Agreed, but Occam's Razor seems too tempting not to consider in this situation. What's more likely, that Google decided overnight to get wise to the 'evil-being' that they might have been underwriting in China for the last 5 years, or that the business circumstances shifted such that an exit from the Chinese search market made more sense for the company, and a story was thus spun?

I have to imagine they have also weighed the business calculus on this. Where they might lose in China for now, will enhance their reputation elsewhere - particularly given how they've come under increased criticism in a wide range of fields. This decision whether intentionally so or in keeping with their stated mission is highly symbolic.

Further, don't think this won't help them in China over the long run either. When a "glastnost" comes to China, as it did Russia, if they're clever about marketing, using Google could ultimately be a symbol of new found freedoms. The fact that the Chinese government has made it difficult for them to operate, given competitors an operational advantage and enabled hackers that attack them and other firms, must make it an easier risk to take.

Being the idealist I am, I want to believe, and I think there's a good probability that doing the right thing here, will mean greater profits now and in the future.

The more right you are, the more significant this is.

Already Google have made a lot of people believe that "Don't be Evil" is a good business strategy. Regardless of the truth of this sentiment, it is to the benefit of society.

The more the slogan is fleshed out and the more evidence accrues that this is indeed good business practice, the more companies will follow.

An additional thought: this could potentially be genius from a business strategy standpoint against Microsoft. I confess I've been weighing the possibility of switching to Bing for a variety of reasons but because of this I'm less likely to do so.

After the dust settles, if Google is able to change Chinese government policy on search that would be monumental. If they aren't and ultimately leave China, that puts the spotlight on other infotech firms particularly Microsoft which has far more to lose by leaving China. On the other hand, if Microsoft chooses to do nothing and stay, it reinforces in the minds of users internationally a key point of differentiation between Google and Microsoft.

The book "Creative Capitalism" features a discussion, sparked by Bill Gate's speech about the ability of tweaking capitalism somehow to serve the very poorest of the world.

The economist-headed detractors tended to boil everything down to companies charging higher prices in order to give money to charity. They then explain that this doesn't work because it is proven that customers will buy the ethical option online if it is of equivalent value and price.

Being from a marketing background, I immediately pricked my ears at the complaint marketers have at hand wavy economists. Even if we ignore the fact that the value of a product is completely subjective & that it is influenced in many ways on some of which have anything to do with the physical product, getting customers to choose your product when it of "equivalent price and value" is the no. one thing a whole heap of companies do. Think how much money goes into ads for washing powder.

Just a small quibble - I think you're creating a bit of a strawman in economists. Coming from both an economics and marketing background, I would suggest most economists believe that companies should act in the interests of their shareholders.

Charity can be a form of marketing just as creating a culture where at times short term profits may be sacrificed for long term benefits is also very much in the best interests of shareholders. Thus, the beauty of this economic system is that while you can profit by pursuing profit for its own sake (which can mean being charitable), I do think taking a principled approach results in more sustained and greater long term profitability - as I suspect irrespective of the outcome, this will be a case study for years to come.

I come from a somewhat similar background. I work in marketing and I am somewhat of an amateur economist.

I agree with you about the strawman. But many economists or more commonly, people with economics in their backgrounds take this sort of a view. They like to distil things to an economics "story." Sometimes this is a great tool. Sometimes this loses important info. Economics training does come with the danger of this kind of mistake though. I heard that there was a serious divide between students and old timers about Ostrom receiving the Nobel (the students didn't like it).

One "story" they (the against camp) told was: If being good is more profitable, companies will do it without being told. That's capitalism, nothing creative about it. If it isn't more profitable and they do it, they are forcing shareholders to contribute a charity of the company's choosing.

Another was the one I mentioned above. If you take an economics graduate, you may find that they're not sure what make of a world where getting customers to choose you're same price, same value product is the difference between non-starter & Unilever. It doesn't make sense to tell this story with the basic vocabulary of microeconomics.

In any case, some essays published in the book make this argument. I don't mean to suggest that all or even most economists would take this view. Great economists (like great anyone) are empowered, but not restricted by their tools.

I think most people in most companies feel similarly. Unfortunately they don't have Google's cash, so "keep the lights on" becomes a more important consideration than "don't be evil."

> Where they might lose in China for now, will enhance their reputation elsewhere

If this was Google's intent, I has certainly worked with me. This gives me more confidence that if I use Google's services, they are unlikely to fuck me around.

> When a "glastnost" comes to China

I think it's more accurate to say: If a "glastnost" comes to China. There's no rule of thumb that something like that is going to happen in every undemocratic country.

Also if a "glastnost" comes to China it probably won't do anything, same as in the USSR.

Wow, this is the conspiracy theory right here: Google already knows that "glasnost" is coming to China sometime soon though their own sources and tries to capitalize on it by doing preemptive strike and playing for the right party in advance.

To continue economic growth eventually freedom of speech and some civil liberties would have to be adopted. Ironically, if it happens any time soon it will feed conspiracy theorists forever.

I think the most amazing thing here is the way they are going about this.

I think it would be naive to imagine that this is a move based solely on ethics (but, then, you never know - I wouldn't want to do them the disservice of ruling it out utterly).

But to do it with such direct criticism of the Chinese government. Even if it is a veiled reference there can be little doubt about the claims. The only inference I can think of is that they are very sure (or have proof) it is the Chinese government that are responsible (I cant help feeling if it was corporate or extremist groups etc. they would be directly named - or at least more clearly referenced). It's a huge political statement.

Im glade I stuck with Google through the last few months and the spate of anti-google sentiment starting to emerge (the cynic might suggest this grand gesture is related...?).

I agree. It's practically a declaration of war. And someone on their PR team deserves some kudos for writing a release that makes some damning accusations very clear without ever stating them explicitly.

"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 banking on the successful industries of today, like internet advertising. Is the political danger of human rights activists really worth more than the money that Google brings? Or were their egos so high that they thought they could get away with it, either by avoiding detection or keeping Google at status quo

Maybe the Chinese government + military is just too huge to get everyone to toe the party line.

Last time I checked, the Chinese didn't need Google. They have communist party approved Baidu.

Google is not very big in China anyway, the Chinese gov't doesn't stand to lose much.

A company like Google saying that it isn't safe to do business in China has to at least annoy them to some degree.

What is really interesting to me (i live in china) is that now that they have made this public it is impossible for them to continue doing business in china. Due to the social rules here if they wanted to save the situation in any way it should have been done privately. Given that they are clever people they know that announcing this will kill the china business. It is in essence a "slap", "we're out of here".

Ah yes, face. How is the news spreading in China?

Try http://twitter.com/search?q=%23googleCN and translate.google.com

Why did this get downvoted? I didn't say anything incendiary and I don't think my statement was factually incorrect. The truth is, the Chinese government doesn't stand to lose much at all by blocking Google. Politics trumps business here - and even if it didn't, all blocking Google does is help promote local Chinese competitors, which is something the gov't likes to do anyway.

The Chinese government aren't attacking Google. They're merely using Google to attack activists.

No doubt they do that to Chinese companies too, it's just that the Chinese companies will never complain publicly.

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)

According to GiagOm "if the Chinese government bans the search giant, then Google could be walking away from about $600 million in 2010 revenues."

http://gigaom.com/2010/01/12/how-much-will-it-cost-google-to...

David Drummond on CNBC said that the value of the Chinese business was "immaterial either way". I don't think 600M is immaterial for G yet, so something's not right.

And given that the gigaom article incorrectly says that google has already stopped censoring, I'm inclined to believe they're randoming making shit up.

"$600 million in 2010 revenues" But what's the profit, i.e. less the costs? And in what currency and which country's banks is that profit (if any)?

It doesn't matter what the current revenues are, or even the profits. The point is to be part of the fastest growing market in the world, and to be an option when many new consumers are choosing online services.

If Google is deciding that they don't want in on this, it's not about giving up millions today; it's about forgoing billions from the next decade.

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.

* Make up for any negative press about privacy by reinforcing the idea that their users' accounts are meant to be completely private and secure.

* Align themselves with human-rights causes, garnering trust amid doubts about trustworthiness and projecting a policy on censorship.

Posturing for war will likely prove very good for Google, and may result in the Chinese government caving. But if they actually have to go to war, it will be painful.

In my mind, it would be ideal for Google to posture for as long as they can, and as loud as they can, and see if they can't get the Chinese government to back down at all. Any significant win, without going to war, could be cause to not go to war, for it could be wrapped up as the government "cooperating".

Never attribute to goodwill, that which can be more adequately explained by good marketing.

Actually, I think Google very definitely declared war on China by making very public, very damning accusations.

The Chinese government could not possible allow itself to be seen caving into a single corporation and Google now cannot allow itself to be seen going back on "Don't Be Evil".

This is the end for Google and China.

War should be avoided at most costs but not all costs. Right on Google.

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."

You had a history teacher who said this?!? Doesn't the period of history he teaches include the United States war against the Axis (World War II)? Yes, the United States delayed entering that war about as long as any country could, but it was on the right side of that war, and it was better for the world that the United States went to war in that case. (Similar points could be made about other countries in other wars; I mention the United States only because you mentioned a teacher of United States history.)

Maybe he meant that war is always evil, even if it is the lesser evil.

> "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.

...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.

I hope this increases the pressure on other search providers to do the right thing. It will be interesting to see how the Chinese govt responds

> It will be interesting to see how the Chinese govt responds.

Chinese Gov will be glad if google leaves - they have nothing to loose. Their credibility as an ethical government will be bruised, not that there was any credibility to begin with.

Don't assume that the Chinese Gov. are ignorant of PR dangers, they aren't irrational. It would be complex mixed feelings.

They can spin this easily. Google is showing porn images in their search results or some other bullshit story. They would do that, and it would make their local search engine Baidu look very good in comparison. They could also spin it as Google not being able to stand the competition and "look! Westerns can't help us, they don't know anything about us!"

They aren't ignorant of PR and they know when to apply force and when to hold back.

It seems they've already started that kind of spin. For example, in the wsj article:

"Chinese internet analysts said they were shocked by the Google announcement, but at the same time they understood the reasons behind its threat to back out of China. They said the cyber attacks have exposed Google's inability to protect its users' privacy..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126335402591827235.html

Yes they have spun things that way - spinning it as good news for them. But it won't hold forever. People are not ignorant - well at least not all of them, not all the time ;)

> They said the cyber attacks have exposed Google's inability to protect its users' privacy

This can always backfire on them ... once groups like those at 4chan get working on Baidu :) And I'd be willing to bet that Google has a much more reliable security. Not to mention that this statement is kind of hypocritical ... since when are they concerned about privacy?

Also ... these PR spins won't work for them internationally ... since communism has a negative image, and this is one of the factors considered when extending a business to China.

So they have a more relaxed communism, allowing privately owned companies to thrive ... but look, Google announced they were hurt by the Chinese government, and apparently they weren't the only ones. Whom would you be more inclined to believe?

And Google is also good at PR :)

On the contrary, the services that Google provides are very important. It's hard for me to imagine China in the role of technology leadership that they'd like, without the support of Google's services.

I think that China's leadership needs to give serious thought to what it'll cost them if their industry and their people can't (legally) use Google.

They did use to block google regularly before Google came in China... And Baidu is quite a bit more popular with Chinese people than Google so I'm not sure if that will be the problem...

What might be bad for China though is all the investment Google made on research and the PR disaster (and the chinese government is very concerned with face).

And interesting to see how Bing responds...

I think this is the best thing that ever happened to Bing, not Baidu. Google users in China will not switch to Baidu, they will switch to Bing; they use google because they feel it has more unbiased results coming from a non-govt backed entity. To a chinese google user, Baidu is an ad search engine and a govt lapdog. I wouldn't be surprised if google's market share got snapped up by Bing if they do leave.

I hope this increases pressure on other COMPANIES in general to do the right thing, especially in regards to China.

I hate to be cynical but isn't Google's share in China only equivalent to a pawn sacrifice? If you consider the brand++; in other markets maybe even a gain.

Isn't you charitable donation just a way of making yourself feel better?

The latest numbers I could find place Google's search market share in China at 19.8%[0]. Sadly, I think 19.8% of China's internet users is much, much larger than the number of people who decide search providers based on the ethical record of the company.

[0]: http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/08/06/google-baidu-sw...

Google handles 29% of searches in China (vs. Baidu's 62%) [1] Thanks to javed for the reference.

[1] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_googl...

".. in other markets maybe even a gain"

Google may lose out in other markets as well. Authoritarian governments will become weary of Google even more now.

What you say is true. Yet is this move in any way inconsistent with how Google has generally been running its business? To me that is the most remarkable fact in the whole affair.

They were willing to censor results. No more. I would say that is a big change in the way they are willing to run the business. Something about this affair must have stung Google. Either morally (going after human rights activists) or in business (increased risks of attacks and infiltration)

That in itself was a significant enough shift from their normal operating procedure for me to think of it as an exception, and they were bothered enough by it that they felt they had to justify it. Also their justification at least made some sense, so the decision that they came to wasn't entirely out of character with how they generally operate.

"Something about this affair must have stung Google."

Maybe China had promised Google clean networks in exchange for censorship?

They censored results, yes, but I was always intrigued by the way they did it. In case you never looked into it, they implemented a system similar to what they do in the US with DMCA complaints: remove the offending results, but provide a notice saying that some results were removed.

Which is really a pretty bold step; rather than being a simple invisible removal, it was an in-your-face "your government didn't want you to see the results for this query" approach.

And for all these years, Google China has done decent job by providing Google Pinyin, Goolge Music for China to the country. I really appreciate that. Hoping this decision was just a beginning of a bigger picture.

Which also makes their departure a bigger negotiating point with the Chinese government.

It is not a negotiating, it is a choice that Google already made by not censoring search result. Chinese gov is known for the attitude not negotiating with human right activists.

I checked google.cn and the results still seem to be censored. The blog post says they will stop the censorship, not that they already have. I think they're leaving the door open for the government to save some face here and approve it if it wants.

That said, they did not leave a whole lot of room for China to save face and that may be enough to sink any hope of progress on that front.

If it's an attack done by the Chinese government, then Google's withdrawal from the country would be welcome by them. It would increase the market share of Baidu, the local Chinese-based earch engine.

It's been time to do that for a very long time...cheap goods aren't worth it at all.

I agree, but are you ready to pay what it really costs to make things?

Yes, but I buy few physical goods relative to my income.

How often do you cross-post the exact same comment between HN and reddit?

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/aouv5/new_appro...

Edit: I may have jumped to conclusions; the individual on reddit may have very well stolen your comment in which case my accusation is invalid.

If it's the same article, why shouldn't it be the same comment?

What's so wrong with saying the same thing in two different conversations?

Nothing, as long as it's the same person saying it.

the individual on reddit may have very well stolen your comment

I did, thought of it more as a social experiment than theft, though. Apologies to boundlessdreamz, if he cares...

That's pretty low.

Huh? To cross-post a comment from news.YC to reddit? Why?

If it was your own comment that would be fine, if it is someone else's then I'm afraid that it is beyond me to explain to you why it is wrong if you do not understand that by yourself.

Right, if it was anything more than a comment on a message board, I agree, but just as borrowing a piece of paper or pencil during class without returning it is technically "theft", this is similarly justified.

You really don't get it do you?

How do I go about explaining this in a way that the coin will drop...

Borrowing a pencil or a piece of (blank) paper during class concerns the use of raw materials.

There is no personal investment in to that piece of paper or pencil, they are the equal of any other piece of paper or pencil, which is why you can 'return' a piece of paper, you simply take another one that looks sufficiently like the original and you return it.

To take someone else's words with attribution is one thing, even when done without permission.

To take someone else's words and to pass them off as your own is the essence of plagiarism. You basically pretended to have come up with those words on your own.

That's 'not done', not because you can't but simply because if everybody would be doing that we'd be having a cut and paste discussion instead of a real one.

If you use a link to underscore a point you make (or even a cut-and-paste quote with a source) that's perfectly fine, but to simply copy someones words and make them your own is well over the line.

'Just a comment on a message board' has nothing to do with it, that's saying that it is ok to steal dollar bills but not ok to steal 100's.

Accepting (and using) your confounding between copyright violation, plagiarism, and theft, most moral and legal system make exception to very minor infringements. The oldest I know of is the Babylonian Talmud, which grants exception to "injury less than a perutah in value" [1]. I challenge you to show any value in this "theft".

that's saying that it is ok to steal dollar bills but not ok to steal 100's

Precisely! That's what I meant by "borrow a pencil" without returning it: I'm saying it's OK to steal a piece of paper (or copy a comment), but not a dollar (or copy his blog post), and not a 100 (or copy a chapter from his book), especially if it serves another purpose (comparing replies to a popular comment in two communities).

1. http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_57.html

I give up.

Someone else want to give it a shot?

Someone else want to give it a shot?

Sure. Assuming we have the same innate moral sense as the authors of the Talmud, you value the damages of my copyright infringement as greater or equal than a perutah in value. I do not.

As a matter of fact, the reason I cross-posted is that I don't think the comment in question deserved the top spot, and would frankly be ashamed if such writing/logic were ever seriously attributed to me.

Right... do you know what 'adding insult to injury' means ?

Wow dude.. You are one of a kind.

Here's a good example:

http://waxy.org/2009/04/all_things_digital_and_transparency_...

The short of it being that identity is paramount online. Stealing content can be a copyright issue, but stepping into someone else's voice and holding someone else's creative content as your own is simply evil. With proper, comprehensive attribution there's some flex to go around, but even then it's generally something done with consent and grace.

Cross-posting someone else's comment might just be borrowing their pencil for an argument, but since it's kind of an amazing pencil and now you're showing it off to your friends like it's your own, you should expect cold stares when you give it back.

Again, it depends on the value you attribute to a news.YC comment, and a reddit "identity". I agree with and understand the immorality of plagiarism, I'm just saying it only applies to work one puts more than a couple of minutes of effort into.

Actually, I think it's kind of interesting. Granted, it was impolite to crosspost the comment from boundless without asking first, but this could be an interesting thought process. I'm kind of wondering what conclusions andreyf was trying to draw.

Edit: After a little thought, I think you may be blowing this up a little bit. He did delete the comment when boundless objected and it wasn't exactly a work of art or anything.

9 Hours later, after parting with this gem:

> "As a matter of fact, the reason I cross-posted is that I don't think the comment in question deserved the top spot, and would frankly be ashamed if such writing/logic were ever seriously attributed to me."

It's a new low for HN from what I've seen to date.

a new low for HN from what I've seen to date

Agreed. Except you're the one who keeps insisting on dragging out for me to explain myself over something boundlessdreamz and I settled in two comments 10 hours ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1049476

wondering what conclusions andreyf was trying to draw

I was wondering who would pick up first on the unyielding Google-love and the blatantly imagined Chinese-espionage speculation, HN or reddit. reddit won :( http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/aouv5/new_appro...

I do care about it a bit because that comment contains personal opinion/commentary. If you had copied only the "data/facts" there would have been no problem.

OK, I'll delete it. Sorry.

Andreyf is active here too, but afaik not under that uid.

This is his:

http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=andreyf

So you may be right after all.

That is not my reddit id and even if it was what is wrong with doing that ?

I didn't mean to imply that anything was wrong with it, I was just going to see if you often cross-posted.

Almost everyone who responded to your comment thought you implied it was wrong :) I thought so because you used the word "accusation"

I read it like that initially as well, then I figured it might be the reverse.

Someone mod poor Femur up, he was right all along.

Thanks, but I don't worry about karma. The discussion that followed because of my post was reward enough. :)

Good enough, but a -4 just for getting the timing wrong by a couple of minutes was hardly your mistake.

You had it backwards, but if you hadn't spotted that I highly doubt that this would have come out.

And I also highly doubt the whole 'social experiment' excuse, that's just way too glib for me.

I would like to see this be the top thread under the parent comment, however.

I am proud of the Google, but the skeptic in me says:

Google knows that it is not in a leading position in China and has been losing market share there. The fight there is probably not a fair one(but where is it a fair one?).

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Google-Drops-in-Market-Share-...

Thus they can make a strong, positive statement that the rest of the market will applaud, while not really losing that much(although 12% of China is still quite a bit).

In the long run, this is actually a very good and profitable business decision by Google. If the Chinese government is allowed to continue their human rights abuses, it will have major economic ramifications for everyone as China continues to grow in power.

"If you dance with the devil, you have to pay the piper."

... This is the first time, I have seen a LARGE company...

I don't want to romanticize times gone by, but I think at certain points in history there have been people who controlled large companies also knew that their sustainable existence depended on a healthy society; there might be short term costs to investing in such a society, but the long term benefits are enormous. In the neo-liberal era, this approach is no longer given any credence, but that is Bad Thing, indeed, and really just plain foolishness.

(Please somebody explain the downvote.)

I downvoted you for your unsupported claim that "In the neo-liberal era, this approach is no longer given any credence". I also downvoted you for complaining about a downvote, which probably gave you more sympathy upvotes than you deserved.

By the definition of neoliberal, non-market structures are considered bad. But you don't know that, or you wouldn't have downvoted me, at least not the first time. Why you might have downvoted me is that you think a shift away from more socialist structures toward more market structures is a good thing, or (less likely) that we are not in a neoliberal era. In either case, to downvote an opinion because you think it is wrong seems silly to me. Why not write a rebuttal, if you're so smart?

I think I have come to take more pride in my vote volatility than in having lots of karma; when I watch it go up and down on a post I think -- wow, people actually care about what I said. And anyone who actually worries about their karma points on HN.... well, sorry about that.

Oh -- I do appreciate the explanation.

I do appreciate the explanation.

I have a better one: you sound snotty and smarter than me. Burn him!

    By the definition of neoliberal...

People don't run around saying "Oh I'm a neoliberal" - it's a word certain groups use to hit others over the head with. Sure enough.. that's what you move in to. It isn't constructive, expect downvotes.

I disagree that neoliberal is a word "to hit others over the head with", any more than "socialist" or "christian" or "pro-life" or "pro-choice". It is a word that describes an ideology; most neoliberals I know would be quite proud of it. I think that most readers of HN lean toward the libertarian side, and are thus sensitive to the critical connotations of neoliberal, but if the shoe fits...

Additionally, just a person might have an ideology even though he or she doesn't announce it explicitly. I reserve the right to describe people in ways they would not describe themselves.

So, I think the downvoting of me this time is flawed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com