5 Responses to “thanks, but no thanks”

1. Brand Scott Says:
   February 2nd, 2006 at 6:41 pm

   Google.com is censored in China directly by government.

2. myrick Says:
   February 2nd, 2006 at 6:53 pm

   No, it’s not. I’m in China. I can and do use Google.com and Google News directly. ISPs in China do have keyword filtering, but you can get around these with proxy servers.

3. Brand Scott Says:
   February 2nd, 2006 at 6:59 pm

   From the same Matthew Stinson (among many others):

   “Moreover, in terms of usability, the international version of Google suffers from a myriad of limitations within China. While a Google search on google.com for sensitive subjects can return five to ten times as many results as the same search on google.cn, being able to see the results is not the same as actually being able to access those pages. The Great Firewall blocks most sites that are extremely critical of the Chinese government, including the websites of most human rights NGOs and many US government domains. What’s more, when searching for some terms on google.com, the Great Firewall actively interdicts users and locks them out of Google for minutes at a time. In short, what’s been lost on some of Google’s critics — but not on Google itself — is that the Chinese government has already subjected Google to censorship”.

   I’ve not said blocked. I’ve said censored.

4. myrick Says:
   February 2nd, 2006 at 8:07 pm

   I don’t care to get hung up on semantics. But, yes, you said Google.com was “censored.” It’s not. Google.com works fine for most searches, and the results are “uncensored.” What you are talking about is that the ISPs are “blocking” certain sites and keywords. That’s the firewall and it can be avoided by using a proxy server. Google itself is not directly “censored” by the government and the site itself is not “blocked.” But, beyond the semantics, was there something you objected to?

5. Brand Scott Says:
   February 3rd, 2006 at 4:39 am

   Sorry you get nervous but this is censorship, as Matt Stinson (the same you quoted) has pointed out:

   “In short, what’s been lost on some of Google’s critics — but not on Google itself — is that the Chinese government has already subjected Google to censorship”.

   You said “users in China can still access Google.com” as if it were a guarantee of open searches and available results. It’s not for the reasons we (Matt, you and I) have pointed out.

   The problem with semantics is not mine, I think.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.