February 12, 2006 12:15 PM PST
So long, Dalai Lama: Google adapts to China
- Related Stories
-
Politicos attack tech firms over China
February 1, 2006 -
Microsoft clarifies policy on censoring blogs
January 31, 2006 -
Tech firms skip D.C.-China shindig
January 30, 2006 -
Google fixes China search bugs
January 27, 2006 -
No booze or jokes for Googlers in China
January 26, 2006 -
Google to censor China Web searches
January 24, 2006 -
FAQ: What does the Google subpoena mean?
January 20, 2006
Tech companies have come under attack for helping the Chinese government police the Web. But few have cooperated as openly as Google.
The New York Times
The story "So long, Dalai Lama: Google adapts to China" published February 12, 2006 at 12:15 PM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from The New York Times expires after 7 days.
36 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
Bring China's population @ large into the internet as a whole, where any intelligent person can find whatever they want if they look hard enough, and bow to govt pressure tweaking the search in a way that still turns your stomach,
OR
Keep the largest and fasting growing market of internet users away from the internet, INSURING THAT THEY WILL REMAIN BEHIND THE IRON FIREWALL!!
Think people. Google is not stupid.
This, in my opinion, is a clear case of, DO THE LESSER EVIL.
ps. has everyone forgotten that Google has created a lab in China run by the x-Microsoft guy?
Sorry, can't remember his name. They've done it because a whole culture of 1.5 billion is waking up to the modern age and are pationate about advancing themselves. Mark my words, China cannot stop the ability of the internet to make ALL information available. They can only slow it, and I bet not for long.
http:thewwa.blogspot.com
If they are helping China present a revised history to many of their people, helping China to tailor the truth that their people are allowed to see, then are they not colluding with what China is doing to her people?
You might want to read about IBM's former work with the Nazis, at <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ibm.htm">http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ibm.htm</a>
I live in BFE and every company in my area has a "lab" in China. Guess what? It has nothing to do with the Chinese "waking up to the internet age". It's all about the money. They're cheaper than India.
Bring China's population @ large into the internet as a whole, where any intelligent person can find whatever they want if they look hard enough, and bow to govt pressure tweaking the search in a way that still turns your stomach,
OR
Keep the largest and fasting growing market of internet users away from the internet, INSURING THAT THEY WILL REMAIN BEHIND THE IRON FIREWALL!!
Think people. Google is not stupid.
This, in my opinion, is a clear case of, DO THE LESSER EVIL.
ps. has everyone forgotten that Google has created a lab in China run by the x-Microsoft guy?
Sorry, can't remember his name. They've done it because a whole culture of 1.5 billion is waking up to the modern age and are pationate about advancing themselves. Mark my words, China cannot stop the ability of the internet to make ALL information available. They can only slow it, and I bet not for long.
http:thewwa.blogspot.com
If they are helping China present a revised history to many of their people, helping China to tailor the truth that their people are allowed to see, then are they not colluding with what China is doing to her people?
You might want to read about IBM's former work with the Nazis, at <a href="http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ibm.htm">http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ibm.htm</a>
I live in BFE and every company in my area has a "lab" in China. Guess what? It has nothing to do with the Chinese "waking up to the internet age". It's all about the money. They're cheaper than India.
MS and other many billions of dollars. And in China, pirating is
legal.
MS and other many billions of dollars. And in China, pirating is
legal.
Am I operating in a parallel universe or does the story need updating?
Generally the Chinese government does not block English contents; that's why I can read this article, but blocks Chinese contents.
Generally despite of these filtering, the censorship is much more soft and ease than before. Go to Chinese sites like sina.com.cn or bokee.com (a Chinese blog site,) there are full of articles critizing the government and the party, some calling it ***** or ditators and yet they are allowed. Just stay away from the a few sensitive topics. (Indeed a paradoxical and interesting phenomena.)
Am I operating in a parallel universe or does the story need updating?
Generally the Chinese government does not block English contents; that's why I can read this article, but blocks Chinese contents.
Generally despite of these filtering, the censorship is much more soft and ease than before. Go to Chinese sites like sina.com.cn or bokee.com (a Chinese blog site,) there are full of articles critizing the government and the party, some calling it ***** or ditators and yet they are allowed. Just stay away from the a few sensitive topics. (Indeed a paradoxical and interesting phenomena.)
Maybe C:Net should do the search again... or maybe, the censorship is somewhere else... definatly not at google.cn
Maybe C:Net should do the search again... or maybe, the censorship is somewhere else... definatly not at google.cn
I am certain that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo would never comply with illegal censorship requirements (or any illegal requests for that matter), anywhere in the world.
In Europe it is illegal to promote or trade in artefacts that emanate from the Third Reich, so Microsoft, Yahoo and eBay censor and block any trading sites on their platforms that do so from being accessed from countries such as France and Germany (this does not appear to apply to the UK, though).
The Google issue is a moral one, and the question that we should all be asking both ourselves (as shareholders with vested interests in seeing the maximisation of returns on our investments) as well as the captains of industry that lead our corporations is is there a moral line that should not be crossed, no matter what the financial cost? I believe that if there was such a line, there would be no starvation in this world (the world certainly produces enough food to feed most of the poor nations); citizens of the US and Europe would long have forced their governments to end unfair trading practices such as farm subsidies, trade barriers, etc. that discriminate against developing countries, etc. and are directly responsible for the starvation of millions of people around the world.
Keep in mind that was a French court that made the ruling.This is because they are based in North America.
Every person that puts up a website has no possible way of adhering to every law of every country that can view its contents.
I am certain that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo would never comply with illegal censorship requirements (or any illegal requests for that matter), anywhere in the world.
In Europe it is illegal to promote or trade in artefacts that emanate from the Third Reich, so Microsoft, Yahoo and eBay censor and block any trading sites on their platforms that do so from being accessed from countries such as France and Germany (this does not appear to apply to the UK, though).
The Google issue is a moral one, and the question that we should all be asking both ourselves (as shareholders with vested interests in seeing the maximisation of returns on our investments) as well as the captains of industry that lead our corporations is is there a moral line that should not be crossed, no matter what the financial cost? I believe that if there was such a line, there would be no starvation in this world (the world certainly produces enough food to feed most of the poor nations); citizens of the US and Europe would long have forced their governments to end unfair trading practices such as farm subsidies, trade barriers, etc. that discriminate against developing countries, etc. and are directly responsible for the starvation of millions of people around the world.
Keep in mind that was a French court that made the ruling.This is because they are based in North America.
Every person that puts up a website has no possible way of adhering to every law of every country that can view its contents.
But, in the case of search advertising, advertisers bid for ads. The business model is different. Methods for pricing of ads are different. Google’s profit margins in their web search engine excluding other new services may be as high as 50%. But, Google need not reduce their ad rates. Advertisers will continue to pay the current ad rates even if their Adwords program returns a profit margin of 80%. Because of this kind of business model, the one who benefits the most is the website where the ads are placed.
Search engines are the only winners.
But, something can be done here. We need a new model or system where search engines pay a part (a certain percent) of their revenue back to their advertisers. For example, a search engine, if it has a net profit margin of 40%, can give assurance that they will return 20% of the money paid by the advertisers back to them.
That is, advertisers can bid as usual, but all advertisers should get a fixed percent of the amount paid to search engines back from the search engines.
This give back can be fixed monthly or fixed dynamically, or, there are many options.
If this is done, the process of bidding will happen as usual and at the same time, the advertisers will see some competition.
As it is a well known fact that the profit margins of search engines are only going to rise in the future, this will help advertisers a lot. And, maybe, we may see the profit margins of search engines decline if such a system is introduced.
Are any of the search engines interested in doing this?
email me? do at-
fnpnet(at)yahoo(dot)com
But, in the case of search advertising, advertisers bid for ads. The business model is different. Methods for pricing of ads are different. Google’s profit margins in their web search engine excluding other new services may be as high as 50%. But, Google need not reduce their ad rates. Advertisers will continue to pay the current ad rates even if their Adwords program returns a profit margin of 80%. Because of this kind of business model, the one who benefits the most is the website where the ads are placed.
Search engines are the only winners.
But, something can be done here. We need a new model or system where search engines pay a part (a certain percent) of their revenue back to their advertisers. For example, a search engine, if it has a net profit margin of 40%, can give assurance that they will return 20% of the money paid by the advertisers back to them.
That is, advertisers can bid as usual, but all advertisers should get a fixed percent of the amount paid to search engines back from the search engines.
This give back can be fixed monthly or fixed dynamically, or, there are many options.
If this is done, the process of bidding will happen as usual and at the same time, the advertisers will see some competition.
As it is a well known fact that the profit margins of search engines are only going to rise in the future, this will help advertisers a lot. And, maybe, we may see the profit margins of search engines decline if such a system is introduced.
Are any of the search engines interested in doing this?
email me? do at-
fnpnet(at)yahoo(dot)com