I respect the motivation of the people behind this but I disagree with the logic here. It seems to be a zero or none type of logic. Are Chinese better off with not having google search engine as a choice, even if censored and having only local options, or are they better off having at least some choice, even if that choice is censored? I think it's the second, not the first.
(Spoken as if to a Google employee) — Someone will build them a search engine. In fact several someones have already. Your company doesn’t have to do it, and you don’t have to work for them if they do.
well, the company doesn't have to do it, I agree. the discussion is, if the company were to do it, would it be a bad thing for the company to do, conditional on professed company values? I don't think so.
The Chinese people may or may not be better off with a censored Google. The rest of the world would be worse off with a Google that has to take orders from the Chinese government.
Hypothetically: Google starts making tons of cash from China. China threatens to cut off the cash-flow if certain results aren't removed from search results outside of China (or something similar).
We'd like to think Google wouldn't do this just for the money, but Dragonfly sets precedent that it would do something just for the money.
If Google makes enough money from China, they would have as much leverage against China as China has against it. The resulting social unrest caused by a major search engine disappearing in China would far exceed any benefit they would get from censoring other countries. In my opinion, it's much more dangerous to allow Chinese tech companies to have a free monopoly without any resistance.
> The resulting social unrest caused by a major search engine disappearing in China
There was no social unrest in China when Google pulled out and I’m pretty sure that in the scenario you’re describing, the Chinese wouldn’t give a fuck.
I mean they have had plenty of reasons for social unrest thus far, far better reasons actually and it did not happen.
> it's much more dangerous to allow Chinese tech companies to have a free monopoly without any resistance.
When Google pulled out of China, they has no market share. If Dragonfly isn't successful, they'll abandon that as well. There is a lot of social unrest in China. China does a good job at preventing it from escalating with supression, but that cost would certainly outweigh any benefits of China trying to mess with Google outside their jurisdiction. This isn't even considering how the US simply just wouldn't allow Google to do so.
> Seriously? Why?
Because this is actually happening. We're basically giving up billions of dollars to China for free.
So you're saying that people of a sovereign nation use local products and that is somehow dangerous. You're also saying that you're entitled to their money.
I find this line of thinking to be very troubling, to be honest.
Think of it kind of like sanctions. Sanctions usually hurt the people of the countries they target in the short term, but they also embarrass the government (if only slightly) and increase dissatisfaction with the government among the population.
Another way to look at it is legitimization - Google doing the Chinese government's bidding through censorship could be construed as tacit approval. Indeed, the Chinese government may advertise it as such.
What's the difference between choice A and choice B? It seems there is no difference. Let's move onto the next logical argument. If the argument is that someone else will do it if we don't then do morals and values ever come into play?
This is one reason why export controls on technology are important. The corporations don't mind helping oppressive governments lock up dissidents.
choice A is for google not to build a Chinese engine and for Chinese to use censored versions of locally built search engines.
Choice B is for them to have a choice of local search engines and a google search engine ( all censored ). Seems to me from moral point of view, Chinese are better off under B and so I don't see why it's wrong for google to go with B
If there was some way to ensure that this never got bigger than China, I doubt there would be as much opposition. The problem arises when you ask the question "Who, next?"
Who, next, wants all of Google's information about people in their country turned over to them?
As much as we in the US talk about out government compelling companies to turn over data, those companies _do_ have a say in what they will or can turn over and our government has some burden of proof that they need it. In China, based on my understanding, they have no choice, no say.
If the question was just "is this better for the Chinese?", I think I would agree with you. This _is_ better for the Chinese. The problem is that this raises the question of "where does this lead?" I don't think it leads anywhere good and, clearly, I'm not alone in that assessment.
> If there was some way to ensure that this never got bigger than China, I doubt there would be as much opposition.
Are you saying US companies should get one moral lapse for free?
> This _is_ better for the Chinese.
Neither you or the parent poster have indicated why it's better. You've described it as exactly the same as local search options. Is Google magical or what? Can the Chinese not make a search engine? Is it beyond them?
