Google Needs to Come Clean About Its Chinese Plans
eff.org
eff.org
The real problem is you can't have a we'll-publicly-disagree-but-do-it-anyways approach with China like you might elsewhere. There's a reason a CEO might make a public post disagreeing with the approach of one government yet will forever remain mum concerning another.
Just stop requiring growth at all costs, chalk up the China (and military) market as a loss, and continue operating at your massively profitable status quo. It may seem like it's a double standard when other companies have access to those markets sans media backlash, but just recognize the differences are known out here in the masses.
Can anybody help me find the video or podcast of a prominent VC from SF heading its Chinese operations goes silent when asked about Chinese censorship. I just can't recall the name or seem to find it in my bookmarks.
This is what Google did initially; instead of censoring themselves like the Chinese government demanded, they opted to leave the Chinese market entirely.
But that's almost ten years ago now; meanwhile, the Chinese economy / GDP has doubled, its connected population has more than doubled, and Chinese internet companies have entrenched themselves. China will - if it isn't already - be the biggest potential market for internet companies.
Think of the market potential of being the niche underground websearch in china.
This is the narrative that Google is successfully pushing; the truth is that they pulled out due to repeated hacking attempts.
Google did have a censored china version of its search engine.
Censorship story is obviously complete bs
2nd is the nature of the best online businesses. The big online cash cows operate on market/niche dominance. A search engine with 5% of Google's search volume does not generate 5% of Google's revenue. Far from it. A social network with 5% of the people you know is a totally different beast to Facebook. An operating system (eg Android) either has a large market share, or it does not have an ecosystem.
Size, market share and such are relevant to these businessess well beyond the simple "economies of scale" rationale. They are not going sacrifice this for "don't be evil."
3rd is that by denying governments, Google & FB would be saying "we're allowed but you aren't."
FB & Google track and use all sorts of customer data for their own commercial reasons. If it is a privacy violation for the Chinese/US government to see/use this data, why is it OK for Google & FB to use this data?
FB decides who should see which article. This is done algorithmically, optimizing for FBs goals. "Old media" had a code of journalistic ethical guidelines, justifying content decisions. FB does not. Why is it OK to widely circulate a (for example) totally false article in order to achieve FBs commercial goals, but not to achieve the Chinese governments "societal harmony" goals?
The NYT could answer that question. They'd have journalistic ethic reasons for not allowing governments to influence content. FB can't. It doesn't.
Btw, what is true for China is true for other countries too with variations and degrees.
Because Google & FB can't lock you up for saying something about Tibet, for example?
It could be that it's not just about profit or growth, but about preventing Chinese companies from developing competing technology.
By entering a market as a big player, you effectively steal money from the existing players. Also, you're increasing the barriers of entry for new players.
Fact 2: Search engines are more and more irrelevant these days. All interesting new content are either from Weibo or Wechat (or other closed garden)
Fact 3: all reports about "Google returning to China" are based solely on the "Intercept report"[1] as source. I suggest everyone take a look at it. I think there's a huge misunderstanding. Maybe it's in-app search for some domain business only instead of web-wide search?
Fact 4: Firewalls in China has a hierarchical layers of blocking. Some times the plain text http is effected, sometimes it's the DNS, sometimes it's the tis certs, most of the time it's heuristics (e.g. SVM model to classify traffic) and random. There are also collateral blocking, like a blocking a CDN. You can't guess exactly which one piece of information was the culprit. And it all varies in places and time. All "blocking" are based on empirical assumptions, no one have ever done a large scale, down to the packet level study of it. Administrative notices of taking down articles are blurry as hell. Sometimes there's even corporates faking govn't orders to remove some review as PR move. So it's very hard to suggest if an "article" should be blocked or not. The chinese govn't utilize this method to force everyone to "self-censorship" and some business are making a profit of it.
[1]: https://theintercept.com/2018/08/01/google-china-search-engi...
That's "google search" if just by a different name
>f2
see part 1
>f3
Google returning is contradicted by p1+p2
>f4
what does that have to do with p1-3 though
FTA
> Documents seen by The Intercept, marked “Google confidential,” say that Google’s Chinese search app will automatically identify and filter websites blocked by the Great Firewall.
This part does not make much sense. It's simply impractical.
YouTube and Gmail also don't work in China, which are significant. They technically didn't leave China, however, because they never entered it.
> Fact 2: Search engines are more and more irrelevant these days. All interesting new content are either from Weibo or Wechat (or other closed garden)
I think you mean to qualify that with in China?
> Fact 4: Firewalls in China has a hierarchical layers of blocking
Most of the western-world web moved to HTTPS specifically because China was inspecting plain text packets. It was interesting to watch the change over happen from 2008-2011.
I mean even if the "android app" came out how does it gain traction?
Does anybody actually use an "app" to search on mobile phones?
You type some phrases into an app, the app displays results in a webview, you click the SERP, then what? a browser opens?
Why don't you use the browser on your phone directly for searching?
That's why I think Google is working on some ROM feature, not an app. Or maybe there are some misudnerstanding from the "source"
If it's an app it's doomed to fail.
These are not exactly web page search. It need deep integration with account(gmail), maps (with up-to-dateupdated POI), schedules, music, movie reviews, news.
It covered much more than just search. I am not sure google can pull that off the same app in China. It will be very unlikely.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/u-n-says-...
https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-child-labor-2012-1
https://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-microsoft-and-lenovo-fai...
I can guarantee you that labeling China with these can go on forever, but how does your fact help with the quesiton we are discussing?
btw Yes I do think Google made the wrong move to cooperate with China. But also I don't think a search app is the plan here. Maybe there are some misunderstanding from the source.
What's going to happen by Monday?
False. There has been a lot of independent reporting on this (even if credits Intercept for getting it first, and yes I work there).
NYT confirmed based on "two people with knowledge of the plans." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/technology/china-google-c...
WSJ confirmed based on "a person familiar with the matter." https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-considering-censored-sea...
Reuters confirmed with "two sources said." https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-google/google-plans...
VICE confirmed with "a source inside the company." https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/9kmdm8/google-china-cens...
Are there any further development besides the initial "Intercept report" details?
My best guess is that Google China somehow partnered with a major Android ROM developer in China to provide a search component in Android system, some kind of integration with "Custom Search API".
It's nothing like the full search experience is returning to China, but technically it's based on the same google search infrastructure.
I like to analyze the structure & dynamic of a topic, not the number of "sources".
At this point we know only that there are people inside Google who are, for various reasons, leaking information to the press. We have no direct quotes from these anonymous sources nor any information about who they might be. For all we know they could be janitors.
What's so funny is that I remember the days when Greenwald used to rage daily against the media for using anonymous sources. Now this has become the primary type of "reporting" that the Intercept trucks in.
You can see your own location in the Maps app, but that’s based on the phone’s GPS, not a google service.
Not sure what the comparison to Japan is, but maps works fine in Tokyo. I use it extensively every time I go there.
* edit: grammar.
Interesting. Hadn't come across it before.
Adsense in China is franchised to a Chinese company.
Uh no. I don't see how you could even think that.
Wried, don't just mention the censorship reason. The bigger picture is [0][1]:
1. China government demanding content deletion by "Red-Header Files" (Government document) rather than law (As it will make the censorship too apparent), and it's violated Google's policy. NOT because of Google is an anti-censorship enthusiast as many people think they are.
2. During that time, Google (including Gmail) also under attack (with possible internal help) by a group of hackers who Google claims are sponsored by the government.
Now, 8 years later, things changed a lot. Especially after the implementation of the China Internet Security Law (中华人民共和国网络安全法)[2] which makes censorship a public responsibility ...
[0] https://techcrunch.com/2010/01/12/google-china-attacks/
[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/google-pr...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Internet_Security_Law
There is hardly any activism against the invasive surveillance of SV companies or protests against the NSA. This forum itself has its fair share of apologists for surveillance capitalism. Where are the protests in front of Google and Facebooks campuses and in Washington?
So if people don't care about these issues at home how can they care about them in China? This is simply not credible or serious.
China's actions don't impact you, your governments and companies here do. In the absence of any mainstream activism, just singling out China for outrage and anger is duplicitous and comes across as motivated more by politics than any genuine concern for the issues.
They're not, see the comment by ardy42.
> There is hardly any activism against the invasive surveillance of SV companies or protests against the NSA
There are plenty of encryption projects around here, and I would not describe the HN crowd as pro-NSA or even pro-Facebook.
Keeping Google insulated from the influence of the Chinese market seems at least somewhat realistic as an activism goal. Separating Google from the US gov't is simply impossible.
(EU citizen here, if that makes a difference.)
Wut? It's obvious that's not true at all, and really easy to prove. Just read this NY Times article from yesterday, about how privacy activists got a law passed in California to reign in those same SV companies: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/magazine/facebook-google-....
Where are the software engineers of SV who work for these companies and implement these programs in the activism, where are the dissenters, where are all the folks who are outraged about China on every article?
Without mainstream activism against surveillance capitalism, NSA surveillance, secret courts, secret processes and secret orders surveillance will become a dragnet few will be able to escape from.
How can we hold China accountable for the same things we are doing? The least that can be done by the tech community is try to get Snowden back with full honors, but like Assange he lies discarded with zero activism, and even demonized in some sections of the press as a 'traitor' and here we pretend to care about these things.
From the end user's viewpoint, internet censorship has only become more strict. While VPN access has never been totally unavailable, it can be painful to use. I've changed my browsing habits to settle for using Bing more than I otherwise would have. At the same time, I'm thankful at least Bing is here. At least, Bing provides reasonable access to search results for technical queries in English. Like, returning helpful answers to Stack Overflow programming questions. Baidu is useless for this.
From a business point of view, to give you some sense of my perspective. I'm not operating with corporate deep pocket money, own 100% of my company, bootstrapped, sales between $1-$3M USD/year for past five years. At this point, I guess I fit into a class of entrepreneur best labeled "multi-national small business owner". It is a tough segment to try to operate in. It requres a complex business structure with entities in several countries (now in China, Hong Kong, and USA). Lots of filings and tax issues to deal with. Being an American makes it even harder with rules and regulations.
So I read this article from the viewpoint of my own biases and experiences (as we all do).
What struck me was, the EFF takes a pain to focus on "the public, Google’s users, and Google’s employees". Further, they ask - "What sacrifices will Google make to its own operating practices in order to enter the Chinese market? Will it have to comply with China’s internal strict regulations, and how will these compromises affect its offerings outside of China?"
From my view, first let me just be frank, China does not give a fuck about Google. If Google comes to China, it will not change China's policy in any way. If Google does not come to China, it will have zero impact on China's policy, in any area.
So to address the first question EFF raises. Yes, with every company that comes to China, the company must adapt to China, not the other way around. There will be many sacrifices and changes to operating practices. As there are for every company that enters China.
For the second question. Yes, to compete here in China, Google will have to adapt to China's strict regulations regarding the things they do not want to be discussed. But, China is well aware of how to operate with separate sets of rules. Hell, they invented "One country, two systems" by integrating Hong Kong. It will not affect Google's offerings outside of China. But while inside their walls, you got to follow their rules.
Last, Google has direct competitors that are in China. This EFF article makes no mention of "shareholders" or "business". But, Google has the responsibility to their shareholders to enter new markets to compete where there is a void. It is not Google's responsibility to fight China. As far as human rights, censorship, etc, that is not Googles fight either, but one thing is certain, choosing to avoid China cannot help things in the future. If you are not here, physically inside China operating, there is zero chance you can have an impact, should the time ever arise.
Net/net. I think it is better for all parties to have Google back in China.
No. Having operations in China gives the Chinese government leverage over you, which they're starting to use to pressure companies to toe their line even outside of the PRC. For examples, see the recent articles regarding airline's treatment of Taiwan on their websites [1]. See also how Mercedes-Benz was forced to apologize for posting a Dalai Lama quote on Instagram [2], and how a Marriott employee was fired after he "liked" a post about Tibetan independence [3]. The latter two happened despite both websites being blocked in China. Years ago, Yahoo also handed the Chinese government information revealing the identities of two Chinese pro-democracy activists, which resulted in their imprisonment [4].
Maybe you were too small for them to bother with, but I'm not sure the PRC could resist the temptation of using the leverage they'd have over a Google with significant Chinese operations. After all, Google is the gatekeeper of information in the West (Google Search), and one of the main ways Westerners and dissidents communicate (Gmail).
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-airlines-china/u-s-ai...
[2] https://www.dw.com/en/mercedes-bows-to-chinese-pressure-afte...
[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/marriott-employee-roy-jones-hit...
[4] https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3862513&page=1
But it doesn't really matter. The end result is the same, Google becomes more susceptible to blackmail.
There is also the 50 cent party.
I don't think so. I think Google has the responsibility to make money. It could hypothetically be the case that entering a new market would cause a loss of money, and thus Google shouldn't enter it. Potential reasons it might cause a loss of money include employees quitting and bad publicity. Uber entered China and lost money, and eventually had to leave.
They're welcome to spin off a Chinese branch to implement all this - with the engineers doing censorship filters and executives signing off on them subject to that censorship themselves. As it is, they want to reject the "liberal standard" while earning that money, but not when they are spending it.
If you do interesting or novel technical work with a Chinese company, especially on things like AI, it will be used by the People's Liberation Army and the Ministry for State Security. You can almost guarantee it.
So if you don't want to work on technology used by a military, then don't work on technology with any Chinese based company.
Gap, at worst, can be ordered to change their t-shirt designs[1]. But nobody considers crappy t-shirts a source of truth, unlike Google Maps or Google Search. What if (when) China asks Google to apply censorship outside of China in order to stay in the Chinese market?
[1] https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/15/news/companies/gap-tshirt-m...
It's exactly like how people would clamor to censor all sorts of alt-right websites with glee, but defend all Trump-bashing websites to death. It's not that I approve of any alt-right ideology at all, but if they are serious about real "free speech", they need to drop this sort of double standards asap. Otherwise it's just another laughable exercise in hypocrisy and only labeling what helps their own interests as "just", exactly what the US government has been doing overseas in all these decades. Nobody would buy into such nonsense.
For instance, your account is 28 days old. Not to exclude you from the conversation, but poor comments from new accounts does look dubious.
Ardy42 is new as of 47 days
The right embraced private corporations having "religious and moral rights" with the cake shop and Hobby Lobby cases. This is the other side of the coin.
Alex Jones podcast was not "banned" from Apple's platform. Apple never hosted either the media or the RSS metadata. Anyone who wants to listen to the podcast can go on Google do a search find the feed subscription and add to the podcast app.
Edit:
Changed "was banned" to "wasn't banned".
And what exactly is Alex Jones' brand of conservatism? Does it involve a narrative of white extinction and false black victimhood? Climate change as a conspiracy? Obama is a Muslim who isn't even a US citizen? What makes Alex Jones conservative?
> People around the country still think that those parents lied about the death of their children in order to score financial or political gain.
Who made money originally selling them this lie and then perpetuating it?
If his ideas really are that popular, he should be able to create the conservative versions of Twitter, Facebook, etc. All of the FAANG companies started out competing against entrenched incumbents by offering a service they didn't. Why can't he do the same?
Alex Jones will be fine. It’s the up and comers who are clearly being locked out of the market.
If your ideas are popular enough and you know how to market yourself, you don't have to be a sharecropper on FAANG's farm.
I also wouldn't be surprised if the thinking behind so many Fortune 500 companies is at least due to a calculation of brand posture going into the future. A lot of the companies being discussed at the moment are social media companies, and youth are the ones who can drive a MySpace event.
I also must ask for elaboration as to the Alex Jones brand of conservatism -- does it involve a narrative of white extinction and undeserving blacks? False flag stories about the Sandy Hook shooting? Does he represent American conservatism?
Even if you aren't controversial, you are just one of millions of people trying to get your ideas out. You're going to languish in obscurity unless you have an alternate means of promoting yourself.
No one "stifled" Alex Jones' speech. His podcast is still being published on his own site like it always was and you can still add it to your podcast app of choice.
One of the most troubling aspects of the Alex Jones ban is the obvious coordination among Apple, Facebook, YouTube and others to completely take him off their platforms at the exact same time. How this doesn't bother HN is crazy.
It's truly crazy how YouTube takes down Alex Jones easily but ElsaGate pedo like predatory channels are still thriving on their platform, with millions of views and comment threads full of cryptic information exchange of the worst kind one can imagine. And it's still up. Insanity prevails.
The courts have affirmed corporate personhood, and their resulting freedom of speech, and in this case they are free to suppress things they host on their platform.
There is an interesting legal argument I heard recently that says that if you operate a private space much in the way as if it were a public space (like a privately-owned park open to the public) then there is a sliding scale regarding how much that space is legally considered 'public' (regardless of ownership), for the purposes of law enforcement, or whatever else (like being a venue for protected free speech). I wonder if, at some point, Google/YouTube et al could possibly be seen under such a lens. Maybe then you could argue private takesdowns are a violation of free speech.
One issue we have is that companies today, in the era of the internet, have grown well beyond any conceivable notion of what it meant to be a company in the past. Facebook now has more than 30% of the world's population in monthly users. They have more active users than any country has citizens. And they exercise more control over them (at least within the confines of the digital world) than nations do as these users' rights and privileges are dictated under a set of unidirectionally imposed terms as opposed to any sort of a public constitution or system of rights. In a way it almost feels like the digital era is perhaps echoing back our evolution from master-slave societies which gradually evolved to feudal societies and eventually onto democratic ones.
Should companies begin to be treated more as we might think of governments once their reach begins to expand beyond that even of governments? I'm not sure, but I do think that we also can't simply appeal to former views. For instance the founding fathers certainly gave no consideration to how companies, with more users than the world population in the 18th century, ought be regarded.
Saying "companies are too big, we have to do something about them" is making a point grounded in concept, not concrete law or action. I too am worried about our current crop of megacorp but if history is indicator the US government will outlive them (as stable governments usually do).
However, this is a major problem because people of both 'sides' of the issue engage in the exact same behavior, ignoring bad behavior when the victims are people they dislike. In our little parallel world where the victims are swapped, suddenly those currently "alarmed" by the behavior would be appealing to "Well, it's not technically illegal - so whatever." This results in bad behavior never being constrained because, so long as society is sufficiently divided, somewhere around half of people will be okay with even quite awful actions.
On corporations, I do disagree with you however. I see no reason to think that the trend of megacorps will end. On the contrary, I see no reason to think that they will not continue to grow in power and influence until they are effectively more powerful than governments and eventually may even begin to supplant governments as the effective ruling forces of the world, even if governments remain as a proxy.
20 years ago, Yahoo was king, Amazon was a minor bookseller, Microsoft was thought to be unstoppable, Apple was nearly bankrupt and BlockBuster was king of video rentals.
15 years ago MySpace was king.
The old guard especially in technology can get “disrupted” quickly.
For all practical purposes does it matter? Facebook in particular creates such an echo chamber. People only see opinions from other people they already have. If it wasn't for my one wacko MAGA conservative friend, I would never have known that thier was a child molestation ring controlled by Democrats under a pizza parlor, Obama was a secret Muslim trying to impose Sharia law, the military was trying to take over Texas or that Walker Texas Ranger was going to rescue it.
Back when we had private company towns they tried to restrict speech claiming they owned the roads, sidewalks, parks, etc.
They were stopped by the Supreme Court who ruled it was a de-facto public space.
Most people do not intuitively see wedding cakes as art, but you can see the issue much more clearly if you view him as a literal artist. An artist refusing to sell a print of one of his pieces to a gay individual because they were gay is illegal and absurd. An artist refusing a contract because he felt the piece requested would endorse homosexuality, which went against his personal views - is not unreasonable.
---
As for companies positioning themselves for the future, I think you might be surprised if you decided to do some searching for information on the aggregate views of generation z. Political trends in the US are on a pendulum. One side goes batshit insane in one direction which results in the growth of a major counter culture which eventually reaches a happy medium but then they themselves start to go batshit insane in the other direction, breeding what would now be seen as a counter-counter-culture to people who have lived long enough. This repeats seemingly to no end. The 60s created the 80s which created the 2000s which is now creating the 2020s. Probably not coincidentally that 20 years is just about the length of time it takes for a new generation to come into its own. Oh well, we can all at least look forward to the 2030s - Mars and political sanity!
Edit:
To clarify that Apple doesn’t host the RSS feed. It just indexes it like Google indexes web pages. The RSS feed is self hosted on another server.
I’m Black, live in a town that was famously a “sundown town” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town) up until the mid 80s and even here the demographics and mindsets are changing. We are still very much the minority but my son’s classmates and thier parents welcome him with open arms into thier homes.
True the county is overwhelmingly Republican but they are more Romney/Bush style Republicans thsn Trump populists.
Free Speech is a principle that the First Amendment applies when restricting government. Private corporations that decide to be a platform for public speech (I think publicly accessible social media posts count) have to consider how they promote free speech. If, on the other hand, the private corporations want to exercise their freedom of association and take clear editorial positions, that's fine too. But, philosophically, they can't have it both ways.
Also note that Google, Facebook, and Apple seemed to have coordinated the ban. Both in size and in style, this is a different beast than Masterpiece.
Finally, Masterpiece was about being compelled to make specific cakes. Customers weren't banned from all cakes or anything. In that way it resembles demonetizing specific YouTube videos more than banning entire channels.
* I think it's fine to boot Alex Jones on the merits, for the record. Though the level of coordination among the BigCos here is concerning.
YouTube hosts videos. Apple doesn’t host podcast. Apple didn’t feel “compelled” to scrape Alex Jones podcast.
And, applying the Masterpiece ruling narrowly, Apple just needs to be careful that a pattern of discrimination against a protected group isn't established in its decisions.
But that's all legal reasoning. The original point is that people should be allowed to speak and the best response is better speech, not censorship, even if the censorship is private.
And Apple is the least interesting of the bunch since they're not really a microblog platform or social network. The coordination with the other platforms is probably the only concern there.
The Supreme Court found that Colorado didn't give enough respect or credence to the owner's religious beliefs. The owner's religious beliefs being openly mocked by a Colorado Civil Rights Board member was used as an example. The board was found to not have worked under the assumption of religious neutrality.
For those reasons, the case was found in his favor.
The Supreme Court did not at all rule on whether or not it was legal for Masterpiece Cakeshop to deny his gay patrons the cake they wanted.
They made no decision on whether it was within the owner's first amendment rights to deny service, or if what happened was denial of service.
Hope this helps.
> ...Apple just needs to be careful that a pattern of discrimination against a protected group isn't established in its decisions.
I was just pointing out that the facts of the case didn't involve a persona non grata. It was about compelling someone to create something (speech?), not about businesses' right to choose their clientele.
Were you upset when they spent years silently purging religious extremist content? That's been going on since at least 2011.
You don't hear Mozilla or Apple complaining about Google returning to China though. I am not really sure why Google matters in China and how this matters to anyone. You enter someone's country and you ought to obey the local laws there. Just as Chinese companies entering U.S. need to respect U.S. laws. There is no conflict of interest. It's simply a business decision. If people really care about privacy and what not, Google wouldn't have 50,000 engineers today. It would be like 1/3 gone at least. But why so many Googlers are staying anyway? I don't have to spell the answer but I will: $$.
So let's not pretend we are not guilty of being an enabler. To come clean, one must be totally out of the whole Google business. This means Googlers should all quit - but trust me, most people won't, even though they cheer others to stand up. I am not being cynical at all, just being realistic about hypocrisy and reality.
That assumes a certain moral equivalency between local laws that just isn't the case. Would you say the same thing about the Nuremberg Laws?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Jewish_legislation_in_pre...
Suppose China becomes a significant part of Google's business in a number of years. Does anyone familiar with China doubt that its government would be willing to exercise that leverage over Google to extract private user information ... even about it's non-Chinese userbase?
How would future Google respond? Would there not be a gigantic financial incentive for Google to hand it over? Would it be willing to leave the Chinese market to withhold its user's personal data?
None of this is certain, but the risk is real enough imo that it makes me uncomfortable as a US-based Google user.
Sure, you can argue "well the US has done this in the past" but A) it's much more possible for Google to say "no" in the US, and B) the US government's interest in such data has historically been limited to (admittedly arguably overzealous) national security concerns, whereas the CCP's interest in such data seems to be for "whatever we can get out of it."
> Yet even for those who have escaped China, surveillance and intimidation have followed. As part of a massive campaign to monitor and intimidate its ethnic minorities no matter where they are, Chinese authorities are creating a global registry of Uighurs who live outside of China, threatening to detain their relatives if they do not provide personal and identifying information to Chinese police. This campaign is now reaching even Uighurs who live in the United States.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/chinese-police-are-spying-on-u...
To your final point: are you sure national security is not really a pawn for being in control, whatever government can get out of us? That donors could get their pay out? The only difference is here we have a trillion miles better freedom of press and speech thanks to BoR.
The American way is just to start doing a half ass job!
That way you keep getting paid lots but aren’t contributing to evil.
China doesn’t have rule of law, they never had a law about censorship, at least not back when google left. It was basically the party telling Google that they had to police themselves and not to talk about what they told them in public, because transparency is a horrible thing in China.
It’s like a top secret law that no one is allowed to know about but everyone must follow.
Google leaving China the first place was about bad governance and corruption, not censorship.
There are plenty of human rights activists, reporters and publishers in China who have been imprisoned without a trial. Would you say the same thing to them?
And are you sure that noone in history had to challenge local laws in your own country for your right to voice your own opinion like this?
It matters because Google is an American company. So not all laws - and not all social conventions - are created equal in this context; American ones get priority.
In a similar vein, if a Chinese company decided to operate in US, and the Chinese government took offense that they freely distribute information about e.g. Tibet there, they would be in their right to criticize such a company, or use legal measures to prevent them from doing it.
TL;DR: you can't argue for absolute cultural relativism when things flow across the border; at the very least, the countries on both side of that border have a say.