June 10, 2006
Google Searches
No one here has blogged about Google in a while.
But someone at the Google Blogoscope has compiled a list of censored searches at the Chinese Google.
The top 10?
democracy
rights
human
human rights
army
mao zedong
what google censors
tiananmen
bird flu
bbc
Human is censored? I guess a search like that could lead to "human rights"... but that's really casting a wide net.
Google
Internecine
On the web
Posted by AlexC at June 10, 2006 10:24 AM
Pick at that scab! Pretty soon, none of us will be on speaking terms with another.
I will concede that CW has gone entirely your way; even a lot of Google people think they were wrong.
Yet I stubbornly hold on to my contention that it is no different to ask British Petroleum not to sell gas that contributes to global warming. We should remove the "consciousness" from corporations and let them be bound by the invisible hand. Maximize the asset value of shareholders and let others fight for universal rights. Donate some money if you want.
Professor Reynolds contends that they have lost their cool factor with the China deal and the censoring of conservative blogs. People are eyeing them skeptically and boycotting. For what it's worth, I'm a Yahoo guy by tradition and inertia but I wouldn't claim they had done much better.
My last company was almost bought by the "Dogpile" folks. They are nice and bright, check out dogpile.com.
Pick at that scab! Pretty soon, none of us will be on speaking terms with another.
I will concede that CW has gone entirely your way; even a lot of Google people think they were wrong.
Yet I stubbornly hold on to my contention that it is no different to ask British Petroleum not to sell gas that contributes to global warming. We should remove the "consciousness" from corporations and let them be bound by the invisible hand. Maximize the asset value of shareholders and let others fight for universal rights. Donate some money if you want.
Professor Reynolds contends that they have lost their cool factor with the China deal and the censoring of conservative blogs. People are eyeing them skeptically and boycotting. For what it's worth, I'm a Yahoo guy by tradition and inertia but I wouldn't claim they had done much better.
My last company was almost bought by the "Dogpile" folks. They are nice and bright, check out dogpile.com.
Posted by: jk at June 10, 2006 1:05 PMBP should continue to sell gas because that's always been their goal. (Well, really it's make money)
Make fuel.
Google's whole point was to provide information. When they go deliberately tampering with the information, not for some technical reason, but for a governmental reason, that's where people get pissed.
Posted by: AlexC at June 11, 2006 10:59 AMAha! You found it yourself. Google is not in business to provide information, they are in business to sell advertising. Operating in China allows them to sell more advertising.
If you talk to a Google engineer (which I do not recommend) they like to say their business is "raising the world's IQ." By providing hobbled Google to the Chinese instead of a state owned solution, I would say they had succeeded on that point as well.
You might have a compatriot at Banana Oil. Ian has to experience the firewall firsthand http://blog.ianhamet.com/index.php/archive/2006/06/01/1859/ Plus his quote from "The Fountainhead" will be well received.
Posted by: jk at June 11, 2006 12:32 PMOk, mea culpa. Google's business NOW is to make money. They used to be about finding information. The two google founders worked on it as part of PhD work.
Posted by: AlexC at June 11, 2006 1:18 PMYeah but the $117 BBBBillion market cap is not a referendum on their research, it exists to pursue business opportunities.
I know we'll never agree on that but don't you see a danger in asking a corporation to pursue some greater good than increasing asset value? It's going to be far more frequently employed by leftists who'll want an agenda you don't agree with.
How about companies make money and bloggers save the world?
Posted by: jk at June 11, 2006 6:19 PMAll I'm asking is that a corporation persues their stated ideals. If it's "do no evil" I'm at a loss as to how that fits with "kowtowing to a evil political system."
If they're going to do the latter, they should drop pretense of the former.
Posted by: AlexC at June 11, 2006 10:23 PM | What do you think? [6]