7 ms·

Tacit acceptance of censorship -- is this the logical destination of "don't be evil?" As if the Chinese people don't deserve truth and dignity; basic human righ

Tacit acceptance of censorship -- is this the logical destination of "don't be evil?" As if the Chinese people don't deserve truth and dignity; basic human rights. Along this spectrum of logic we would also argue that the North Korean "internet" is a good thing, as is all controlled media and news, too. I find it repugnant to see the people in relatively free Western nations pull the ladder up after them; as if others don't deserve what we have (but now obviously take for granted). That's a form of soft bigotry. A condescending pat on the head and a tut-tutting, as if the simple people of China couldn't handle freedom and/or don't want it. The Tiananmen Square Massacre wasn't all that long ago, so we know that the latter is not true. Obviously this decision is driven by money -- access to markets -- but what else? What is the ideology that makes this acceptable and justifiable in their minds, because I cannot understand it. "Do you participate, or do you stand on the sideline and yell at how things should be?" -- Tim Cook Partnering with evil is evil. Empowering evil is evil. As is ignoring it. Does anyone doubt that a report of all searchers for forbidden knowledge will be generated and turned over to Chinese leadership for "followup"? But there's undoubtedly a lot of money to be made so what do I know.

sigmar 8y ago
>As if the Chinese people don't deserve truth and dignity; basic human rights. Their internet is already censored. This is the question of whether Baidu is doing the censorship of search results or Google is.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- forkerenok 8y ago
  I'd argue it still counts as contribution to curtailment of the mentioned rights. As it was mentioned before, presence of Google will add legitimacy to the practice of censorship in China (and not only in China). My toy conspiracy theory is that China is inviting foreign giants on its own terms to deface them. That in turn will level appearance of their products with those of Chinese companies in some global markets (e.g. b2b software).
  - puzzle 8y ago
    Do they actually care about such rights? I've read somewhere that there are mobs for things such as fairness, where people will even take justice in their own hands if the courts don't do their job, yet the Chinese for the most part don't care about freedom in the Western sense. Why is it that more people seem to get riled up over a lady killing a cat with her heels, as in the horrifying event of a decade ago, than censorship of over a billion people? It's not exactly a secret. Yes, the presence of Google might add a bit of legitimacy to censorship outside China, the slippery slope which is to me the real danger. Inside the country, though, I doubt it would make any difference. I have a hard time imagining millions or even just thousands waiting for Google to come in and... do what? Show uncensored results, only to get summarily blocked within minutes? I'd be surprised if there were that large of a group whose opinions would be swayed by what Google does or does not do. Or that they're ready to start protesting, only to be discouraged at the last minute by this new censored search engine. You'd think that by now you would have heard about them.
chongli 8y ago
What is the ideology that makes this acceptable and justifiable in their minds, because I cannot understand it. It's cultural relativism. Since every culture can only be judged within the value structure defined by that culture, every culture is good by default. It tends to go hand in hand with the view that Western countries are destroying every other culture and thus are evil. It's a sickness spreading throughout the West, but in the US in particular.
- shredprez 8y ago
  A couple thoughts: Cultural relativism is amoral. It isn’t about good/evil, it’s about local norms. What is normal one place may not be normal elsewhere, from the national level down to the family level. When paired with fatigue over the US’ complicated, open-ended interventions at home and abroad, you will often hear people provide a moralized version of cultural relativism as a reason not to engage. The real reason, obviously, is that these people no longer believe intervention will be effective and could even be damaging. In that framework, it’s understandable to have a “hey, it’s their house, they can do what they like” response. I say all this as someone who believes it absolutely is the responsibility of liberated people to liberate others, while also recognizing how challenging it can be to achieve that goal on any large scale. In conversations like these, I think it can be helpful to consider the context in which people arrive at their conclusions rather than casting ideas you disagree with as a “spreading sickness.” By that metaphor, we ought to focus on the cause of the disease, not the weakness of the ill.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  That's not what cultural relativism is and that's not why Google is thinking about taking this step. They are thinking about taking this step because: a) they are a business, China is a huge potential market they will lose if they don't try to compete for it, and b) they believe their product does good in the world, and therefore they think a partial good (partial access to Google) is better than no good (no access to Google). Whether b) is true or not is obviously in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think it's closer to a rationalization of a) than a sober evaluation of the objective truth. For those wondering what cultural relativism actually is, it is a useful mental tool for thinking about the evolution of cultures other than your own. It is not moral relativism, nor is it a hatred of the west.

sigmar 8y ago

>As if the Chinese people don't deserve truth and dignity; basic human rights. Their internet is already censored. This is the question of whether Baidu is doing the censorship of search results or Google is.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
forkerenok 8y ago
I'd argue it still counts as contribution to curtailment of the mentioned rights. As it was mentioned before, presence of Google will add legitimacy to the practice of censorship in China (and not only in China). My toy conspiracy theory is that China is inviting foreign giants on its own terms to deface them. That in turn will level appearance of their products with those of Chinese companies in some global markets (e.g. b2b software).
- puzzle 8y ago
  Do they actually care about such rights? I've read somewhere that there are mobs for things such as fairness, where people will even take justice in their own hands if the courts don't do their job, yet the Chinese for the most part don't care about freedom in the Western sense. Why is it that more people seem to get riled up over a lady killing a cat with her heels, as in the horrifying event of a decade ago, than censorship of over a billion people? It's not exactly a secret. Yes, the presence of Google might add a bit of legitimacy to censorship outside China, the slippery slope which is to me the real danger. Inside the country, though, I doubt it would make any difference. I have a hard time imagining millions or even just thousands waiting for Google to come in and... do what? Show uncensored results, only to get summarily blocked within minutes? I'd be surprised if there were that large of a group whose opinions would be swayed by what Google does or does not do. Or that they're ready to start protesting, only to be discouraged at the last minute by this new censored search engine. You'd think that by now you would have heard about them.

chongli 8y ago

What is the ideology that makes this acceptable and justifiable in their minds, because I cannot understand it. It's cultural relativism. Since every culture can only be judged within the value structure defined by that culture, every culture is good by default. It tends to go hand in hand with the view that Western countries are destroying every other culture and thus are evil. It's a sickness spreading throughout the West, but in the US in particular.

shredprez 8y ago
A couple thoughts: Cultural relativism is amoral. It isn’t about good/evil, it’s about local norms. What is normal one place may not be normal elsewhere, from the national level down to the family level. When paired with fatigue over the US’ complicated, open-ended interventions at home and abroad, you will often hear people provide a moralized version of cultural relativism as a reason not to engage. The real reason, obviously, is that these people no longer believe intervention will be effective and could even be damaging. In that framework, it’s understandable to have a “hey, it’s their house, they can do what they like” response. I say all this as someone who believes it absolutely is the responsibility of liberated people to liberate others, while also recognizing how challenging it can be to achieve that goal on any large scale. In conversations like these, I think it can be helpful to consider the context in which people arrive at their conclusions rather than casting ideas you disagree with as a “spreading sickness.” By that metaphor, we ought to focus on the cause of the disease, not the weakness of the ill.
snowwrestler 8y ago
That's not what cultural relativism is and that's not why Google is thinking about taking this step. They are thinking about taking this step because: a) they are a business, China is a huge potential market they will lose if they don't try to compete for it, and b) they believe their product does good in the world, and therefore they think a partial good (partial access to Google) is better than no good (no access to Google). Whether b) is true or not is obviously in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think it's closer to a rationalization of a) than a sober evaluation of the objective truth. For those wondering what cultural relativism actually is, it is a useful mental tool for thinking about the evolution of cultures other than your own. It is not moral relativism, nor is it a hatred of the west.