Richard of The Peking Duck left a comment (and a blog post) responding to my previous post about the Google affair, “Google In China Is Better Than No Google In China“. In his blog post, Richard comforts me before ceremoniously declaring Uln the winner:
Kudos to Kai Pan for all the work he did in laying out his argument. The winner, however, is Chinayouren.
Bastard! *shakes fist*
Richard also summarizes:
“Freedom of choice” sounds wonderful. It sounds a little less wonderful when it’s “freedom of manipulated choice.”
…except the thrust of my argument is that “no choice and no freedom” sounds a whole lot less wonderful than “freedom of manipulated choice”.
Fortunately, Richard also left a comment going into detail with his disagreement, which I’ll quote below and respond to. Before doing so, I do want to state very plainly that I’ve been a fan of The Peking Duck for a long time. I usually agree with Richard’s point of view and I generally respect him, even if we have and have had some very strong disagreements (mostly over rhetoric).
Here we go with Richard’s comment:
I have to disagree. First, since the results are manipulated and the deck well stacked, it won’t leave such a terrible void in most Chinese people’s lives.
Agree it won’t leave such a “terrible void” in “most” Chinese lives, just the market share of Chinese internet users Google commanded, which I personally feel is a significant amount of people. I’m worried for those people and any Chinese netizen that could’ve been a future Google convert. Unfortunately, I really don’t think many people are thinking much about them or what they want.
The market will fill that void soon enough if it’s so gaping.
I agree the market will fill it if it’s so gaping. Yet given how “well stacked” the deck is, I personally feel Google is better equipped and positioned to deliver more to the Chinese internet user even in such a hostile, unfair, stacked-deck environment. It’s not that I don’t expect someone to fill the void, it’s that I have more confidence in Google doing it better and thus offering significantly more value to the Chinese netizen.
Second, if google does indeed end up leaving China (a big if) it will do far more than merely cause Westerners some brief self-satisfaction. It will create a serious dilemma for other companies doing business with China and will force the world to rethink what it means to cooperate with China.
I agree that Google leaving China will do more than just give some Westerners some brief self-satisfaction. I just don’t think it’ll result in as much dilemma and rethinking Richard thinks it will. Foreign companies have been working in and with China long before Google agreed to self-censorship. I respectfully think Richard is overestimating the relevance of Google’s departure to the vast majority of industries and businesses. I’m not saying it won’t cause ripple effects. It will. I just don’t think it’s going to be as revolutionary in the business world as Richard (and many other journalists, commentators, and pundits) think it will be.
Richard also says Google leaving China is “a big if”. I actually suspect likewise, but right now we still have Google saying it is going to uncensor Google.cn, possibly to probably playing a game of chicken with the Chinese government censors, seeing who will flinch first. If and when Google uncensors Google.cn, I’m curious as to what people, especially Richard, think will happen next. Will it get blocked but Google.com won’t? Or will it get blocked and then so will Google.com? We’re all making educated and reasoned predictions here, but I’m trying to figure out what will happen in the context of how it hurts the Chinese internet users.
I’m not saying that these are necessarily good things, but they would almost certainly happen. It would create all sorts of issues among China’s educated classes, whose support China counts on.
I agree that Google’s departure will create issues among China’s educated classes. Unfortunately, I think they can be mollified so long as the most practical tools Google offers, that may be so integrated into their professional lives so much that it would be a monumentally painful loss if they could not longer access and use them, remains accessible. And this wouldn’t be web search. This would be Google Apps like GMail, Google Docs, etc.
There would have to be considerable loss of face for China as well, though it’s hard to say how much they care about that.
I agree that there will be a considerable loss of face for China. But is that what we’re after? To embarrass China? To make it lose face? Without a question, I believe China has done many–too many–shameful and embarrassing things. It deserves what it gets. But this isn’t China forcing Google to leave. It’s Google forcing China to force it to leave by reneging on an agreement. The only argument against that is to say China is now breaking its part of the agreement and making it so uncomfortable for Google that Google has to leave, which I can accept if Google tells us just what it is. Until then, it’s more like a girlfriend threatening to leave until she gets something her boyfriend isn’t willing to give but she previously was fine with. Again, she’s free to change her mind, but what about their pooch (the Chinese internet users)? What happens to the dog?
So while it would be a shame for the Chinese who use google to be deprived of a choice, no matter how manipulated and bastardized it may be, the greater effect would be on China’s reputation both among its own citizens and among the global community China has been eagerly courting. It would be a painful step backwards. Compared to this full-frontal assault on China’s reputation, the “self-satisfaction” that may be felt by some Westerners can only be described as trivial.
I’m not comfortable with the attitude of using this as a “full-frontal assault” on China’s reputation. I think there’s a huge amount of “self-satisfaction” underpinning even the desire to do so. It’s retribution for all perceived slights, disagreements, and frustrations. I understand the inevitability, even necessity, of geo-political hardball, but cheering this on over how much face China is going to lose and how much trouble it will cause the Chinese government amongst not just the international community but also its own people is a little disturbing. This is the attitude that fuels China’s argument that foreigners are trying to destabilize it, trying to keep it down.
That might be playing into China’s hand.
-
Google.cn features manipulated & censored search results, but it still offers Chinese internet users a choice other than Baidu. Less choice is less freedom.
-
A 12 point summary of the entire Green Dam Youth Escort web-filtering and censorship software controversy and the CCTV attacking Google for porn links scandal.
-
CNR’s Weekly Review highlights some of the most interesting and can’t miss blog posts from the English China blogosphere. This week: June 21-27, 2009.
Google In China Is Better Than No Google In China 
Green Dam & CCTV’s Attacks On Google – 12 Point Review 
Beggars, Expat Habits, Netizen Revolution, Jackson, & Parkour 
Playing into China’s (or rather, the CCP’s) hand would be never playing hardball out of sheer fear and the type of logic you’ve been espousing. This is what has given China the woefully self-censored media it has today.
“it’s more like a girlfriend threatening to leave until she gets something her boyfriend isn’t willing to give but she previously was fine with.”
mebbe, or it can be seen as a relationship which actually worsened over time due to the bf’s growing demands
As MLK said, “The time is always right to do what is right”
Zuo Ai,
Sorry, I’m not advocating never playing hardball. I’m advocating a consideration of the consequences, especially those I personally feel a lot of people don’t want to consider. Do you want me to misrepresent your position as always playing hardball? If not, don’t misrepresent mine.
Yes, I’ve explicitly said as much multiple times now. The thing is, we don’t know because Google hasn’t said.
What do you do when your “right” isn’t the same “right” as someone else’s?
I’m not advocating for censorship, Zuo Ai. I want less censorship and more freedom for Chinese netizens as well. I’m just not sold that this chain of events will lead us towards that more quickly or with less casualties. You do understand my basic position, don’t you?
I know you’re not advocating never playing hardball, if I sounded like that I apologize, it was a mistake. I was just using that to point out that I disagree that this case is playing into the CCP’s hand (as you stated it might).
What I meant with the relationship and MLK bit is that your own allegory does not seem accurate to me at this point, given that we can probably already agree that the CCP’s censorship of media is not a “right” thing to do. The opaque nature of the censorship regime doesn’t give the Chinese people (en masse) a real opportunity to decide what’s “right”, so its really the CCP’s “right” which seems an aberration, evidenced by their proclivity to present only their version of events.
I guess it might have been more accurate to describe it as a gf (google) who got into the relationship believing the bf would change for the better (a dubious assumption), and he just stayed the same rather than did anything different. Right thing might be to just give him an ultimatum. She may end up dumping him, but maybe it will affect him for the “better” in the future.
I also don’t believe this (google’s possible exit) would lead quickly to more internet freedom, but I guess I disagree with the “casualties” bit. Of course I could be blinded by my own “self satisfaction”, and I may be over-simplifying the whole thing. I hadn’t thought much of the effectiveness of a display like this from a major US corp in China beforehand, but now that its possible, I think it has the opportunity to do considerable “good”, for freedom of speech as well as my automatically self-interested ego (cause I’m a foreigner, this goes without saying right?)
Zuo Ai,
No, it doesn’t go without saying just because you’re a foreigner. In the context of China-West friction, the phenomenon of self-interested foreigners who don’t consider the ordinary Chinese is as true as the phenomenon of self-interested CCP leadership preoccupied with maintaining their privileged grip on society. One should only feel guilty if one suspects the criticism may apply.
When I mentioned the difference between what is “right”, the point is not to contrast only what the CCP think is right versus what you think is right but that generally that what is “right” is not always the same for everyone because they have different things at stake. The world isn’t black and white. Many people are going to be affected by this possible scenario. Google should be free to do whatever it thinks is right. This I agree with. What I don’t agree with is anyone suggesting the Chinese people who think this is going to suck hardcore should be told to think otherwise, that this is done for them, for their benefit. In some way, maybe it is, but it’s a bit like rubbing salt into a wound and they’re not necessarily going to buy it, not should they be expected to.
Going back to the girlfriend-boyfriend relationship analogy, we don’t know if Google came in thinking China would change or whether it has or hasn’t…again, because Google hasn’t said. I think we need to be careful of this detail. Moreover, the boyfriend in this case is the CCP government. What about the pooch (the people)?
I do understand the hope many people have that this Google ultimatum will eventually lead to some epiphany or revolution in the Chinese government or China overall. I just don’t see anyone offering any real outline of how that’s going to happen except professing their hopes and expectations, much less one that accounts for the people who get thrown under the bus in the meantime. There’s no real play here being shared, just a hail mary pass.
Thank you for your comment. Cheers.
“In the context of China-West friction, the phenomenon of self-interested foreigners who don’t consider the ordinary Chinese is as true as the phenomenon of self-interested CCP leadership preoccupied with maintaining their privileged grip on society”
-meh, I dunno that foreigners are comparable to the monolithic CCP central leadership in that regard.
“One should only feel guilty if one suspects the criticism may apply.”
- I feel suspect because I’ve been pronounced guilty on that front so many times. Some may have been true, others, not so much
“What I don’t agree with is anyone suggesting the Chinese people who think this is going to suck hardcore should be told to think otherwise, that this is done for them, for their benefit. In some way, maybe it is, but it’s a bit like rubbing salt into a wound and they’re not necessarily going to buy it, not should they be expected to.”
-Well, I suspect most Chinese people affected by this will not get the full story when it does come out (the public “full story” neway). The ones who do get the full story, well, I think they have the sheer size of the story to thank, and google would be at least partially to thank for that.
“Moreover, the boyfriend in this case is the CCP government. What about the pooch (the people)? ”
- I think that “pooch” was in the care of the CCP long before google decided to lend a hand as it were, and while you may point to google’s actions and ask “how is this new action gonna affect the pooch?” I think, just personally, that we should be focusing on asking how the CCP’s “inaction” has led to this. After all, it is their pooch. And I think google leaving could very well point the “pooch” to ponder if the CCP is really fulfilling its role as caretaker (its a smart pooch). That, I think, would be a benefit to Chinese people although certainly not to the CCP. I understand I may be oversimplifying it.
I’ve been asking my Chinese friends here in the states how they think they could pressure or influence CCP policy on this issue, they have answered with wide-eyed bewilderment. So yeah, I dunno how, but it might just be through not allowing the issue to die online.
Zuo Ai,
It’s inaccurate, even lazy, to compare the people, as there is diversity in either. The point is to acknowledge the existence of the sentiment, the phenomenon. For example, it’s pointless to argue which people are more racist, but there’s a point to acknowledge that racism is a real phenomenon for both people.
Heh, which means those pronouncing you of being guilty were sometimes right, and sometimes not so much. Par for the course of every member of humanity, right?
I was referring to the people who already think this sucks hardcore but are being told that it’s being done to them for their own good. The Chinese government says the same thing all the time. The availability of choice, of competitive search algorithms to use for finding information online, of innovative cloud-based productivity products isn’t exactly a sinful self-destructive indulgence that typically falls under the paternalistic “I’m not letting have this for your own good, you’ll thank me later” umbrella. The argument here is that “we’re playing a game of chicken that may involve you guys losing a bunch of value we provide so that maybe–maybe–down the line, your government will lose so much face that they’ll grant concessions to us and then you’ll thank us then.” A lot of things can happen in the meantime and there’s no guarantee those things will be good.
Its okay, we like the analogy, right? That pooch may feel abandoned by someone who had voluntarily inserted itself into the pooch’s life, winning the pooch’s love, becoming to the pooch another master, another care-taker. Now that care-giver is abandoning that pooch back to, yes, its original care-taker. Now, the pooch might pine for the abandoned master so much that it manages to convince the original care-giver to reconcile with the one that left, or the pooch (more like a human child than a dog with such limitless love and boundless forgiveness) might resent the one who abandoned it.
Fun, eh? Heh. But you see my point, right? In the scenario that the government blocks Google entirely, I do hope Google’s Chinese fans kick up enough dust to force the government back to the table, but I’m not so sure that’ll happen.
As I’ve said before, the Chinese care about this, but they also care about a lot of things that they don’t see the government as uniformly against their interests. They have their criticisms and the things they wish were different, but Chinese people, like most, are a pragmatic lot who are willing to compromise with their government because their social mindset is very different from many in the “developed West”, partially due to their history and their current socio-economic situation. We know this. It is because we know this that I think expecting some sort of revolution against government censorship to happen should Google leave is “short-sighted and naive”. The government clearly does more (or is seen as doing more by the only people that matter, the Chinese people themselves) for the Chinese people than not. This isn’t a tipping-point issue, the government isn’t nearly at risk of losing control or legitimacy. Google, I think, needs a lot more ammo than what they’re showing us, if they (or anyone else) seriously want us to think that this might lead to some sort of revolution with China.
Interesting, what does the wide-eyed bewilderment mean, though? The problem with overseas Chinese is that while they still care on some level, they’re a bit removed from the situation. This has pros and cons.
I totally agree the issues we care about must not die. But of course, there are constructive ways of keeping the issue alive and progressing towards somewhere positive for everyone, and there are destructive ways.
Again, thanks for the comment.
China would have invited the potential full-frontal assault on itself if Google actually did pack up and close shop. And in that case, why shouldn’t there be at least a modicum of self-satisfaction after all China’s censorship policies have put us through? My own site has been blocked since the June 4 anniversary. I’m not saying we should gloat and see this as revenge, but it would be hard not to feel a little schadenfreude if we were to see China’s draconian censorship policies come back to bite them in the you-know-where. And if Google does indeed leave, China would get bitten. And that’s their choice. They need to demonstrate some good will and be willing to give an inch. Google has bent over backwards to meet their irrational demands, at considerable risk to its reputation.
Our differences don’t seem to be that extreme. I am not cheering on an assault on China. I am hoping the two parties work out their differences so Google can stay. But not if they (Google) have to throw their values out the window. I was for that before, reluctantly, but China has demonstrated a pronounced lack of good will and going back to the old censored system might not be an option anymore.
richard,
Yes, maybe in that case. But this isn’t that case, is it? Let’s stick to the actual case at hand, right?
I also didn’t say people shouldn’t have a modicum of self-satisfaction in the appropriate context. Remember, I explicitly wrote that China’s government often deserves what it gets but we both know what details we can and can’t work with in this case.
For the record, I think if Google had just packed up and left, we’d still still healthy amounts of people saying it was the censorship and people saying there must be some other reason, including that Google is giving up because it couldn’t hack it here. I don’t see that spectrum of interpretation disappearing for a united “it must’ve been the censorship, let us shame China” chorus.
Good, and that attitude was what I was explicitly commenting on. This is the attitude I fear may play into China’s (or more accurately, the Chinese government’s) hand. I’m pushing back against this, admonishing this possible attitude because I know this attitude is prevalent amongst many foreigners right now. You can’t say it isn’t, can you? I would very much like that you’re resisting this attitude yourself personally. That’s good. It’s dangerous.
We don’t know exactly if China hasn’t shown some good will and has been willing to give an inch, do we? Because we don’t know the exact details of the current spat. Because neither side is really saying. Have you considered that the Chinese government allowing Google.com and its unmanipulated search results to remain accessible in China was them giving an inch in return for Google setting up a dedicated Google.cn? Is that not possible demonstrating some good will and giving an inch?
And do you really think China’s demands are necessarily irrational? Or only irrational for your stakes and from your perspective? But possibly entirely rational for their stakes and their perspective? You already know I largely share your stakes and your perspective, Richard, but is it going to move everyone forward if we categorically dismiss each other’s interests as “irrational”? Was it James Fallows or Pomfret that once said we have to at least respect the Chinese enough to be willing to consider that their reasons are genuine and real?
I agree that our differences are not that extreme. I do think our rhetorical approach to threshing out this situation may be different but I do believe we both are acting in good faith, trying our best, hoping for the best. Can’t say the same about others but I can say that about you and Uln and many people. I don’t think Google threw their values out the window when they came to China. I think they made certain compromises with some of their values in accordance with other values. Until Google reveals how the censorship agreement and demands have changed or explicitly says they haven’t but they’ve just changed their minds, we can’t necessarily say China has demonstrated a pronounced lack of good will on the censorship front. I also happen to think corporate espionage is not unique to China, is an expected business risk, and I’d refer to the ZDNet link I offered in my previous post.
So what will happen to the dog?
Wow, long post. Unfortunately this week I am a bit stuck with time and no time to answer in detail. Just wanted to clarify, in case it is not obvious, that what you are discussing here goes a bit beyond the point of my initial post.
When I wrote the “why is it good news that…” I didn’t mean to express a political stance about how we should deal with China and the CCP, I just intended to explain some interesting technical aspects which I think many people does not understand, such as the difference between G.cn and G.com, the difference between SEM and GFW, the nature of the Chinese censorship, and the consequences of Google’s moves in the light of all this.
From there on, in the big political picture the conclusions to draw are open, and I hate I didn’t have more time to debate it. The problem is we are moving in very uncertain terrain: will they block G.com when G.cn leaves? If they do block all the Gs, will the effect on the Chinese educated classes be significant enough to be worth it?
I have to admit that, in spite of my initial post, I definitely see some value in Kai’s argument: If all the Google services leave, the consequences in the long term might be much worse than the advantages I wrote about… I think I will share a bit of my gold medal with Kai, he has deserved it for the hard work :)
*beams proudly with his sliver of the Peking Duck gold medal*
BTW, some interesting reading:
U.S. enables Chinese hacking of Google
Excerpt:
“This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.”
Or did they?
The Chinese government ‘resolutely opposes’ any such suggestion.
It’s against the law, apparently. ;)
A tweet by imagethief led me to this:
“If a bunch of 15 year-old script mutants from Estonia hack into AutoPartsWorld.xyz, then the site owner has the option of forgetting about it. But if an unnamed foreign entity (i.e. China) conducts a concerted quasi-military attack on Google and the company not only learns about it but also discovers that A) sensitive companies involved in US infrastructure and defense industries were also hit and B) its own employees may have been involved, then the company has severely limited options. If Google knew about this and said nothing to anyone then the best it could have hoped for was a PR nightmare – and it sounds like it might be edging towards treason (or at least prolonged GlennBeckian rants and special Congressional hearings) in a worst-case scenario. Sure, it could have handled it more discretely – but then there was the possibility of losing control of the message (when someone in the company or either government reveal it at a time of their choosing or through a blunder) and looking, well, EVIL when the pattern became apparent.”
The whole thing here: http://ow.ly/10p9M
stuart,
The Chinese government, of course, “resolutely opposes” any such suggestion that they sponsored or directed the hacking. Whether that’s true or not is hard to determine. “The feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access” merely holds to the assumption that the trail available to scrutinize leads to China.
The chinesenegotiation.com post is definitely interesting because it suggests that the censorship issue here is Google trying to minimize its losses from the hack by getting gains elsewhere. This is contrary to what a lot of the “this is about Google revolting against the censorship” chorus has been chanting.
This also seems to go along with the general skepticism and criticism that Google is kicking up dust about censorship to distract from a real issue. However, according to chinesenegotiation.com, it isn’t about saving face over a failed business, but saving face over a loss of face from the hack.
@stuart – “quasi-military attack on Google and the company not only learns about it but also discovers that A) sensitive companies involved in US infrastructure and defense industries were also hit and B) its own employees may have been involved”
I don’t buy this argument at all. If they have proof of a “quasi-military” attack, I really hope Google is not so dumb to go and publish a blog post about it. They should first provide evidence to the American government and collaborate in all the necessary actions WITHOUT alerting the attackers.
Moreover, how can an attack on Google hit defense industries in the states. In most international companies in sensitive IP sectors like pharma we are not even allowed to send any work information on web mail. Are you telling me that defense industry uses Gmail?
I still believe that Eric Schmidt’s explanation was true. It was a personal decision of the founders. Sure there were hacks and a couple of employees tried to get some info to sell it out to someone, this happens to all of us in China, that’s why we have strict Data Security Management procedures here. And sure, the police probably used Google’s back door to hack activists accounts (just like the American police uses it to hack suspect muslim people’s accounts). But Google could have tried to stop all that quietly and helped the activists much better than with this blog bomb.
And by the way, the Estonian teenage hackers are still more impressive to me than those supposed quasi-military CCP ones. We are speaking of the government who couldn’t even put together a Green Dam, where do they get their hackers, in the School of thought of Mao Zedong?
Uln, just want to respond on the Chinese hackers thing only in your comment.
I’m pretty certain the elite hackers the Chinese government/military have were not employed for the development of Green Dam, which is more a government wealth redistribution opportunity that had to be packaged to “serve the good of the people”. I’m sure the elite hackers were doing something much more important.
wondering why PekingDuck has taken 2 comments off that i wrote criticising him for his critiques against nesbitts. They write seminal work on bsuiness in asia. they have credibility but burger tears into them? I say jealousy.
Richard Burger. if u dont like censorship in china, then let people critcize you too.
He doesn’t have to let people criticize him on his own blog, ewalt.
You don’t think Kai Pan that is hypocrticial of him? PekingDuck [I removed this blogger's name at his request] censors crtical comments of him but does not like that China does the same? That is the pot calling the kettle black.
So why should China let others criticise them? I say free speech all the time is the best policy but especially when you are the one criticising people for it.
ewalt, I completely understand why you think it may be hypocritical, but I believe there’s a line between public space and private space, between public property and private property. Richard’s blog is his private property. There’s no contradiction between him being against public sphere censorship and him wishing to keep his home in order. It is his choice to invite you to share your comments and his choice to kick you out when he finds your comments unreasonable to him.
The separation between public and private property is indeed an abstract concept and the government of China does indeed see it as their choice to control what information is disseminated or allowed to be aired on their property. To better understand this would involve a discussion of the larger ideas of social contract within concepts of nationhood and sovereignty. In short, a nation’s citizens can consent to accord certain powers to the government. For Richard, I imagine he believes a proper social contract involves a combination respecting free speech in the greater public sphere but allowing individual’s the right to controlling free speech in their private spheres, on their own personal property.
Insofar as the Chinese people consent to let their government control their ability to criticize their government, the government will control it. However, the government does not control criticism from afar, from the people who are not under the jurisdiction of that Chinese government. Richard and his blog are not under the jurisdiction of that government. He abides by his belief in free public sphere speech (which includes your right to start a blog to criticize him) and his belief that he can control the contents of his own private property (his blog).