OT: Hands Off Google!

[Craig White]

On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 08:06 -0700, Alan Dayley wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Randy Melder wrote:
> > editor beating death on google.cn
> > <http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=editor+beating+death&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&meta=>
> > editor beating death on google.com
> > <http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=editor+beating+death&btnG=Search+News>
> > 
> > do no evil... well maybe just a little evil. no one will notice.
> 
> OK, I'll chime in with an analogy, imperfect though it may be...
> 
> Lets suppose you run a "mission" or halfway-house for drug addicts.
> Your goal is to help them leave the streets, get clean and return to
> productive life.  In such a position, you get first hand knowledge of
> crimes every day.  Illegal drugs, drug deals, confessions of robberies
> etc. are common occurrences in your work.  If you always report this
> kind of knowledge to the police, how effective will you be in your work
> with the addicted?  If you don't report it, doesn't that make you an
> "accessory" to the crimes committed?
> 
> Comparing the work of rehabilitation and help for the drug addicted to
> the services Google provides a huge stretch, I agree.  Google's first
> job is also to make a profit so that is another way the above story does
> not quite fit.  But, here is my point for telling it.
> 
> If Google does not filter search results, they would be blocked
> completely from the Chinese network.  Which is the lesser evil:
> Providing no information to the Chinese people or providing filtered
> information with a clear indication that the results are filtered?
> Which of the two allows you to have some influence and some
> participation in the improvement in the life of the Chinese people?
> Would being completely blocked from China to take a stand benefit the
> people more than providing at least some information?
> 
> It appears to me that Google thought some participation the the
> spreading of information was more beneficial (ie less evil) than no
> participation at all.  (And they thought it would earn them money, I'm
> sure.)
> 
> These are the thoughts that go through my mind when thinking/discussing
> weather or not Google is "doing evil" with respect to their current
> filtering via google.cn.
> 
---
of course you can't ignore the fact that Vaughn already sees Google as
evil so by extension, whatever they do in China would be evil.

Likewise, Randy apparently sees China as evil.

Interestingly enough, there are reporters beat up in this country
too...and a lot more murders.

Craig