On the Soapbox

"There are no arguments. No presentations of facts-"
I disagree see:

"Google is now valued at 50 billion dollars.
If you stacked hundred dollar bills 31 miles high,
you'd have 50 billion dollars.
You'd think they'd have the balls to say no to the
Chinese government's request for search results censorship.
You'd think they'd have the balls to say -
'You want us? Take us as we are.'
Do no evil. AND Have balls.
Think what great PR that would have been."

"FREEDOM takes another hit.
The world's largest and best internet search engine is complying with the Chinese government's request for censorship.

Besides blocking access to all western news services, they're censoring search terms like:
"teen pregnancy","homosexuality",
"the Dalai Lama",
"Taiwan independence", "democracy", "human rights",
"dating", "beer" and "jokes".
Beer and jokes?
Funny is good. Do funny, not evil."

"Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist, is serving a ten-year prison sentence in China. Yahoo made his conviction possible, by providing the Chinese Government with his account information. Shi Tao revealed a government document that directed Chinese journalists not to stir up social unrest during the anniversary of the June 4 Movement (in memory of the Tiananmen crackdown). Ten years in jail. Ten years in jail. For one email. The Red Tie Brigade asserts, they were just following orders. Ten years in jail."

"Why this matters. Feb 7th. Award winning Chinese newspaper editor Wu Xianghu, has died as a result of a police beating he received for his paper's reporting on corruption.
Wu was reportedly attacked after 50 policemen charged the newspapers offices and he was dragged from his office. An article in the paper accused the police of charging illegal bicycle fees."

First, how does a company's value constitute an argument? Yes, Google is rich, and yes, it is seeking to become richer. There is nothing wrong with this by itself. Only when it does so while violating principles does this become a problem. As I have stated in my previous arguments, citing the company's value or wealth is not an argument. It serves as an aggravating factor if indeed what they are doing is wrong, but it does not prove that what they are doing is wrong. I have argued that what they are doing is imperfect, it is not "evil" as people would suggest on first glance. You need to establish that first, and you have not done so.

Second, the Chinese government is not begging Google to do business there. If it was, then yes, Google would have bargaining power. But this is not the case. The CCP would be more than happy to have a home-grown company with an even tighter leash dominate the market.

Third, I suppose you missed my bit about the red herring. Yes, the Chinese government does many horrible things. I do not deny that. Nor do I deny that, ideally, the world should put a stop to this. But none of this is relevant to Google. They do not have political power. They did not beat these people. If we were to all follow your standard of relevancy, then any company that has done any business with the US government should be condemned because of American use of torture, even though those companies may simply have sold the latex gloves used by the guards. If you want to use horror stories, that's fine, but first, you must show me how they are relevant.

Fourth, I have yet to see any counter-arguments that have been put forth. I ask again, what is to be gained by a Google pullout? What about google.com? In fact, did you know that any Chinese user who tries to get a Google Account is automatically kicked over to google.com. There are a number of other arguments that have been raised by others and myself, and I have yet to see a single convincing counter-argument.

Harping on emotions like horror stories or large dollar signs may win a debate with the masses, but it does not with me. I am not stubborn, and if your side can make good solid arguments to invalidate all of my arguments, then I would be more than happy to concede.

Oh, and I should add that there is a quote that I am fond of (source):

If you say, "we know Unix better, so we get better results with Unix," you're a scientist. If you say, "we don't use any Microsoft crap, it all sucks" you're just a fanatic.

I think this pretty much sums up what I think about how people have been approaching this issue.