[WikiEN-l] Google bows to censorship

[James Alexander]

To be honest I don't totally see it as hypocrisy, inconsistent? Perhaps a
bit, I actually saw the Google statement as less "we don't support
censorship" and more of a "you broke the implicit (or explicit I don't know)
agreement. I think the biggest thing was that Google thought that if we were
working with China and going along with their filtering they should be
leaving us alone. Instead they decided to attack us and therefore we can no
longer trust them.

 User:Jamesofur
James Alexander
james.alexander at rochester.edu
Wiki:jamesofur at gmail.com <Wiki%3Ajamesofur at gmail.com>
100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one
:)



On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Christopher Grant <
chrisgrantmail at gmail.com> wrote:

> (from smh article)
> >Mr Newhouse believes the site would be filtered under the Federal
> Government's mandatory filter.
>
> The plot thickens... Sure their articles racist and are basically designed
> offend everyone, however I personally don't feel conformable with the
> government being able to block a site like ED.
>
> -- Chris
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Gwern Branwen <gwern0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> > >> If censoring some things (like "the most offensive sorts of racial
> > >> vilification you could possibly find"), and refusing to censor other
> > things
> > >> (like an historical account of a pro-democracy demonstration), is
> > hypocrisy,
> > >> then let me be the first to say that I'm in favor of hypocrisy.
> >
> > Silly Anthony. Don't you know that China was simply asking Google to
> > comply with local laws against morals-destroying smut, the propaganda
> > of life-destroying evil cults, and the subversion of mass-murdering
> > terrorists?
> >
> > What's some peculiar racist humor compared with *that*? Strange moral
> > standards you have there.
> >
> > > But then, treating one country differently from another country is not
> > > hypocrisy.  Treating one situation differently from another situation
> is
> > not
> > > hypocrisy.  Looking at the relevant part of the Google statement, it
> was
> > > this: "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."
> > > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
> > >
> > > It was a statement specifically about the Chinese government, and about
> > > results on google.cn.  Google did not claim or even imply that it was
> > > stopping all censorship altogether.  So I don't see the hypocrisy.
> >
> > It is, at the very least, inconsistent. One set of rules for the
> > Chinese (and the world), and another set for the Australians. What
> > difference is there between the 2 situations that justifies this? If
> > there is no difference, then it's a plain contradiction. (Oh, you
> > happen to agree with one and not the other? I see...)
> >
> > --
> > gwern
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>