Google’s CEO Says Tests of Censored Chinese Search Engine Turned Out Great | Hacker News Reader

Google’s CEO Says Tests of Censored Chinese Search Engine Turned Out Great

wired.com

30 pointstareqak22 comments

> “But we also follow the rule of law in every country,”

No. you probably make a good effort to follow the letter of the law in the jurisdictions you work in. I'm sure you employ many talented lawyers to minimize your legal risks. However, the "rule of law" is a separate concept that your businesses obviously ignore.

If you respected everyone being ruled equally under laws (or law-like concepts in non-government situations), enforcement actions like closing accounts for would involve some type of due process where the accused has an opportunity to face the accusation, see and rebut any evidence, and make a reasonable defense. Closing accounts unilaterally by your edict while refusing to offer any explanation beyond mumbling vaguely about "TOS violations" is a clear example of being ruled by men, now laws.

As a Chinese consumer I desperately need a viable alternative to Baidu. A consored Google would do so much good by bringing proper competition to the market.

I know censorship sucks. But peole concerned about it should fight it by means that minimze harm to users. Stronger encryption, tools that bypass the great firewall, standards and protocols against censorship and dictator influence, these would be a lot more meaningful than bashing a single company and a single product.

All companies that do business in China contribute to censorship and oppression indirectly by paying tax. The point have always been and should be makig sure these businesses bring a net benefit to the people.

> But peole concerned about it should fight it by means that minimze harm to users. Stronger encryption, tools that bypass the great firewall, standards and protocols against censorship and dictator influence, these would be a lot more meaningful than bashing a single company and a single product.

Those people are building those things. Google could build those things -- and then people could use the real version of Google from inside of China and there would be no need for a censored one.

Before those things are built, what should my mother do to avoid being killed by those fake medical ads on Baidu? How should I explain to my mother she should always toggle on the VPN that doesn’t always work and use the search engine that she can’t even pronouce to avoid being scammed? And how can we scale up that effort two hundred million times so that all elderly people in China can save their hard-earned money and their health? And while all that happns how do we make sure the Party will simply sit and watch and not further restrict access?

Why would the fake ads go away under Google?

Because Baidu is monopolizing the search market in China. It also is especially dependent on misleading medicl searches financially. Organizationally there are reports that Lu Qi, its former CEO just lost out fighting those in favour of this business model. And CEO Robin Li is either bizarrely very delusional about the integrity of his business or extremely wicked in not giving a shit about cheating people into buying shoddy medical services. Baidu is evil pure and simple. Google on the other hand will be under special scrutiny from both the Chinese gov and overseas, though ironically for entirely opposite reasons. It’s extremely unlikely it will do anything remotely similiar to what Baidu does.

Perhaps you are unaware of how bad Google has been at this as well: https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/7/16257412/rehabs-near-me-go...

There is a huge portion of Google's revenue that comes from malicious, fraudulent ads, and they have very little financial reason to prevent themselves from making boatloads of money. They only locked down rehab ads once The Verge called them out on it.

Please read this whole expose, then decide if Google is really going to improve things in your country.

What an absurd false dichotomy. “Either let Google assist the Chinese government in censoring information or my Grandmother will die.” Seriously? It’s the government’s responsibility to prohibit false advertising, and in an environment that lacks such regulation, there’s no reason to think Google will do a better job of self-policing such ads than Baidu.

It’s the government’s responsibility yes but the government isn’t the only effective measure against false ads. The market works too so why not have both? Isn’t it even more necessary to have other resorts when the government isn’t elected and does not work? There of course is reason to think Google will do better because people are literally crying for an alternative. It’s a no brainer for anyone who wants to compete in China.

A “market based” solution makes no sense here. Both Google and Baidu are going to optimize for ad revenue, which means doing only the minimum in terms of self-policing to avoid government regulation, just as Google, Facebook and others have done in every other country in which they operate, including the US. The fact that Google is entering this market in the first place, in essence putting profit over ethics, weakens your point further.

You would be probably right in that bringing censored Google (actually it's not just Google but for the sake of discussion) to the mainland China will do much more good than harm. This, however, translates to that Google is willing to compromise that much for the profit and no one would be sure how much Google will compromise or even had compromised in other countries. In the other words, people fear that China gov't dilutes cooperate ethics (already compromised a lot, but still) to the point of no recovery.

It is a unfortunate situation, stalemated between two big superpowers. Probably the only reasonable (but probably not viable) solution is to ditch Google. shrug

> A consored Google would do so much good by bringing proper competition to the market.

China is experiencing some weird shit right now. Before we can sort things out by ourselves, I don't think a new character can change the status quo magically.

Also, censorship is just one of the problems.

I use foreign service mainly because it's harder for CCP government to acquire my data, so I can fully enjoy my constitutional rights like freedom of speech outside China's Internet.

If Google operates the China branch completely independent of it's home company (No data sharing in between), then I will probably fine with it. But I DON'T think that would be the case here.

So in the worst case, Google China may one day became a tool that can monitor me even I'm using foreign services. I don't like that at all.

They're not going to leave that kind of money on the table. This is way more than the potential from "project maven." They cannot ignore this market and that market will not take no for an answer, so you have a CEO who will tergiversate on this issue.

Apple would do the same if the CCP/PLA came down and said, we need a way to look into user data. They will hem and haw and make noise but in the end they will capitulate (because if they don't they will cede the market to a domestic provider or a competitor who will sooner or later enter their home market).

His biggest concern will probably be more with regard to keeping his IP from getting exfiltrated.

I think this is a mis-reading of how China conducts business. China isn't interested in just establishing back doors in the dominant players in the market. They're interested in both dictating to foreign companies what they must censor and report, but also they're interested in establishing local competitors that will have state sponsored advantages in the local market in the long term in order to achieve economic dominance.

So the question here isn't whether Google will pay the price of sacrificing it's principles for market share. It's whether Google will pay the price of sacrificing its principles for a short term opportunity of a market at the cost of possible IP theft that could threaten its existence internationally.

Oh, and that's before we get on to the question of whether what China is asking for is limited to China, or whether once established Google can start asking for deprioritizing of tiananmen square mentions on Google in Europe or America.

WIRED, unfortunately, is more of a press release outlet than a real news outfit. :| Pichai got softballed a few questions by Steven Levy, a guy who has written a glowing book about the company and somewhat regularly writes in-depth exclusive puff pieces for Google.

It's really disappointing this is the outlet Pichai finally chose to spoke to, but it's understandable why: WIRED wasn't going to ask him anything he wasn't ready to answer.

> “But we also follow the rule of law in every country,”

How can one speak of "rule" of law in an autocratic non-democratic country? The Chinese people in no way consented to anything like this "law", and to follow it is an act of oppression against the Chinese people.

Would Pinchai gas Jews in Nazi Germany, murder gays in Uganda, and stone schoolgirls in villages in his native India to follow the "rule of law"?

Well, from the point of views of a normal Chinese citizen, Google’s presence is always welcome. It better be censored or it’ll be kicked out pretty soon. Though people doesn’t like these censorship, vast majority of Chinese simply doesn’t care at all. As a recent NY times report mentioned, even when young people are given the tools to bypass the censorship, few of them actually used it, and almost nobody used it to access western news reports. Censorship is not great but it’s no where close to be comparable with gassing Jews or murdering gays, and fighting censorship simply has super low priority for most Chinese. HN can be accessed from China freely but very few Chinese come here or even knows abou it. Otherwise the sentiments in the comments would be very different :)

Man, getting really close to selling all my stake in Google. This CEO is turning out to be a really big 'tool'.

Am I the only one who is worried when he said:

“When you're so early with a powerful technology, sometimes you have to self-regulate.”

surrender of the commons to the private wishes of the powerful.

> We are compelled by our mission [to] provide information to everyone, and [China is] 20 percent of the world's population.”

Notice how he removed "the world's information" from Google's mission, since Chinese are only allowed to see CCP-approved inform.

Of course one can. But should one?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com