In Sanity We Trust
Back Diversions Broken News Forum Gallery Index
Don't Be Evil:
Google claim a commitment to providing free and unbiased access to information on the internet. Their declared company policy is indeed "Don't be Evil", though their concessions to Beijing for operations in China might appear to be at odds with that ethic. Google, along with Microsoft, and Yahoo have come under considerable criticism for their approach to China which allows for censorship of politically sensitive search entries.
Google, again along with Yahoo and Microsoft contend that they do more good than harm despite kow-towing to Beijing. This is not a view held by Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, which has been banned in China since October last year. Wales has criticized and challenged the others to take a stance on internet censorship in China. Wales stated that censorship was "antithetical to the philosophy of Wikipedia".
We occupy a position in the culture that I wish Google would take up, which is that we stand for the freedom for information, and for us to compromise I think would send very much the wrong signal: that there's no one left on the planet who's willing to say "You know what? We're not going to give up.
- Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia.
U.S. Congress is set to introduce the much hailed Global Online Freedom Act today.
Articles
The Guardian - Wikipedia defies China's censors
Fast Company.com - How Google Grows...and Grows...and Grows
Wikipedia - Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China
The Inquirer - UK MPs slam "immoral" Microsoft, Google, Yahoo stance
Amnesty International U.K. - Amnesty accuses Yahoo!, Microsoft and Google of hypocrisy in China and urges users to take action against them
Global Online Freedom Act of 2006
Tibet Will Be Free - Yahoo Helps China Jail Another Cyberdissident
Microsoft - Microsoft Outlines Policy Framework for Dealing with Government Restrictions on Blog Content
Wired News - Google Defends China Policy
The Register - Yahoo! Worst in China
Comments
Blacklist of wiki have blocked lots of useful information entry China, but it also blocks the soul of fundamentalist, soul of Osama Bin Laden entry China. You know the bombers of London metro grow up in British, British government costs a lot to providing outreach and social services to them. It still can not prevent them became terrorists. In china there are no organizations providing outreach and social service, the people will be easier become terrorists if there is no limit import of information outside.
I think Chinese government understands china will become a democracy society someday. In the communist party textbook it says, economic system of society will decide what kind of superstructure (politic system) of a society. When the government decides to join World Trade Organization, it shall realize state-owned enterprises can hardly survive under fair competition. When the state-owned enterprises bankrupt, there are different interest groups in society, people will have independent soul, the dictatorial control will hard to continue. I don’t know what exact reason why the government blacklisted wikipedia, but I think it will block the information of democracy interring china. I don’t think the news about china human right from western countries can enlighten Chinese people’s soul of democracy. In my humble opinion, what will enlighten Chinese will be the institution of a democracy society. For example, independent public broadcast organization like BBC is one of these wonderful institutions. In the past, Chinese people always been told western medias are all control by monopoly capitalism, labor class has no their tongue to speak for them, it is persuadable, because people can imagine how the monopoly use commercial advertisements to control commercial TV channel news program. But most westerner know, beside some regulation prevent monopoly controlling commercial TV channel, the independent non-commercial broadcast organization play an important role. In Hong Kong, RTHK is a government radio, it operate according the principle of BBC, after 1997, Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa was supported by Chinese mainland central governmet, two Hong Kong commercial TV companies do not dare to critic the chief executive, afraid of their advertisement revenue from mainland state-owned enterprises being cut. In such circumstance RTHK a government owned broadcast organization became the bravest TV program maker in TV channel who dare critic the HK government(RTHK has no independent channel, according the contract between Hong Kong government and commercial TV companies, they shall give some times to broadcast TV program made by RTHK, another commercial radio critic HK government crazily too, maybe the cost to maintain a radio station is much cheaper than TV channel). I think let Chinese people know these kind of information is much important than what western media often report human right problems. Of course, there are many people listen BBC, but seldom of them know there are no commercial advertisements in BBC domestic channel. But I think Chinese have sufficient way to get information about the operation of BBC, if they want to know. Government seldom blacklists these information. In fact most Chinese people including me stand on the side of Chinese government appoint these problems, such as Falundafa, I don’t think when Chinese people discover CBS news only reported how Chinese government prosecuted the Faludafa addicts, and did not mention a word about devil religion had made how much people commit suicide. Chinese will have a good impression about western media and democracy institution. Although in the future people shall have the right to know all kinds of information and judge it is true or not by themselves, but I don’t think less of those information block by Chinese government will be harmful to the development of democracy.
- Willy, China