The Missus, so many points, I don't know where to begin. I'll go from the start.

"Why? We are censored, we have government interference. "

Yes, and we fight it every step of the way. Hopefully Conroy's filter doesn't get put in place. Accepting this in any way is tantamount to giving up, so in practice, you're supporting that idiocy.

"Now we have You Tube acting as gatekeeper of American entho-centric standards, a type of cultural censorhip all of it's own. It may not censor but by the very fact it doesn't opens any material up to moral judgement by the US media."

So now you're getting annoyed at youtube for *not* censoring? That's retarded. In the wake of this Google fiasco, the Chinese government made one very telling comment. An official said that it was the government's duty to influence public opinion.

Cutting through all of the waffle, this is the key point.

The public should always influence the government, not the other way around.

That goes for everywhere. This isn't a culturally specific notion which you can claim is some imperialist western conspiracy. It goes for everybody.

I'm not saying the *west* should influence China, I'm saying the west shouldn't assist the Chinese government to control the populace.

"Saddam, Oh it was brutal but his ways kept a diverse people together better than our imposed way."

I disagreed fervently with the Iraq invasion. Still do. But the situation now is far better than it was under his watch. Until recently it was shocking and I don't think the current situation was worth the hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

The Iraq invasion was a mistake IMHO. But the situation is better now, and I accept that despite my opposition to the invasion. In fact, the people who are so anti-America that they want the Iraqis to continue suffering, just to prove they were right are downright misanthropic in their determination to be right.

The situation is indeed better now, than it was. Which makes its place in this argument utterly irrelevant.

So now you're getting annoyed at youtube for *not* censoring?

Yes I am. I am very concerned that the larger a population the more social norms need to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Did you see the Andrew Ollie lecture by the Chasers Julian Morrow? It touched on this very subject. So yes I do suggest that by not censoring literally that subject matter becomes open to censorship by the extremist views of a nation or people who were never the intended audience. If a you tube video offends anyone, it stays on You tube, but is often deleted from the primary provider of the material due to complaints by an audience that saw it on You Tube (a google site) directing their anger to the original provider rather than You Tube.

Then it stands to reason a video producer would direct content to You Tube audience rather than the audience it expects to target. May as well just let the US do all videos.

Sort of like Mum telling a 40 year old, you cannot watch that! It does remove cultural differences and the USA being dominant does mean cultural imperialism.

One day you will see what I mean. Slowly people are seeing that local content does need to be protected to keep some local flavour. Or we just become one big boring Hollywood movie. Appeal to all ages and all religions, all senses of humour etc. In other words bland, bland and more bland.

Kudos to Google.

It will cost Google money. It will cost their chinese licensee more.

It will cost china the time of having it's people use less efficient search engines. This may not bother China much as the one thing it has is lots of people to finish the filtering job of less selective search engines.

I think Google has made a principled decision, in full knowledge that this will cost it money. Not sure if other software giants will follow though.

Rusty

"One day you will see what I mean. Slowly people are seeing that local content does need to be protected to keep some local flavour. Or we just become one big boring Hollywood movie. Appeal to all ages and all religions, all senses of humour etc. In other words bland, bland and more bland."

I see what you mean and I don't really appreciate the condescending tone.

I simply don't think anybody has the right to choose whats *best* for us. Certainly not governments. I don't like the Americanization of Australian culture either, but I'm not willing to tell people what they can and can't watch. People have the right to choose American shows, even if I don't think it's optimal.

On the other hand, I don't think we should simply descend into the lowest common denominator either. That's why we still have the ABC providing decent news and analysis. Thank heaven for that.

But that's a far cry from banning things I disagree with.

People have the right to decide these things for themselves, whether or not I think it's ideal is utterly irrelevant.

Either you trust people in power to decide what you should and shouldn't like, or you don't.

I don't, and honestly, I think those who do are somewhat naive.

Notably, we couldn't have a discussion such as this, critical of the Chinese regime, if we were publicly discussing it in China.

So whilst we sit and have this discussion, bear in mind that many people aren't allowed to, because people have decided what's best for them. If that is really, their actual motive.

You're confusing propping up regimes with misguided attempts to protect culture.

But don't worry. One day you'll see what I mean... actually, I hope for your sake, you don't.

TurnRightTurnLeft: "Whilst the Chinese government hasn't been directly accused,"

They have now: http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/01/researchers-identify-command-servers-behind-google-attack.ars

TurnRightTurnLeft: "Google has about 30% of the market share in China, with the majority going to local provider Baidu."

Yes, well there are a number of reasons for this. You can read some of them on this thread: http://www.webmasterworld.com/asia_pacific_search_engines/3085132.htm

One comments stands out:

"I am not the only person who changed from google to baidu. The reason is because Stablity... google's server is very unstable in China"

Baidu is run by the Chinese government, and is a central part of their censorship regime. It is in their interests to ensure most Chinese citizens it by preference. I am sure the google.cn servers are as rock solid as every other google server on the plant. However, Google can't control the connections to them. So it should come as no surprise that on several occasions the Chinese government have outright stolen Google's traffic:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/18/baidu-hijacking-google-traffic-in-china/

TurnRightTurnLeft: "Is this going to harm Google financially?"

Hardly. China as a country mostly buys dirt and rocks (minerals & coal). The only people who want to advertise there are the Chinese themselves, and most of them aren't online. And guess what, when Chinese businesses choose a search on the basis of making money, who do you think they choose? Hint: their market isn't in China.

TurnRightTurnLeft: "By leaving a monopoly situation"

Hmmm. That is a twisty one. Did Google create the monopoly situation, or did the Chinese government? The internet is a global thing. I suspect google.cn will always be available, just not based in China. This isn't anything new to us Aussies - google.com.au is located in the US. So why won't Chinese citizens be able to get to Google? Well it won't be because of Google's current actions. If they can't get to Google, it will be because of the Chinese governments mandatory filter.

Interesting points, rstuart.

I wonder if the mainstream media's going to pick up on that server article you provided (I'm also curious to see if the US government comments). It may be pretty strong evidence, but I think most are going to need a smoking gun before directly accusing the government. Perhaps even more than that.

Interesting points as well, regarding the theft of google traffic. However, I'm not so sure about your comment regarding the profitability of the Chinese market.

I concur that given the size of the market, it should be a lot more profitable than it is. However, conventional wisdom is that due to the fact the Chinese market is growing faster than any other market, and represents more internet users than any other country (more than 300 million at last count) that even the scraps of such a market, are still profitable. 30% is a pretty big scrap. It mightn't be profitable at this point in time, but if China does succeed at transforming itself from almost total reliance on exports, to significant domestic consumption, then a presence here may indeed be significant, for no other reason than an advertising platform for local businesses targetting that growing domestic consumption.

However, I think you're right insofar as the Chinese market is not nearly as lucrative as it's made out to be, and it seems Google is the first group openly questioning that orthodoxy. Which is a big leap in itself.