Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 4th Jul 2011 21:18 UTC
Microsoft "A year and a half after Google pulled its popular search engine out of mainland China, partly over concerns about censorship, its rival Microsoft has struck a deal with the biggest Chinese search engine, Baidu.com, to offer Web search services in English. Baidu, previously primarily a Chinese-language search engine, made the announcement Monday afternoon, saying Microsoft's search engine, Bing, was expected to appear on Baidu's Web pages by the end of this year."
Order by: Score:
Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Tue 5th Jul 2011 12:23 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

<flamebait>

Well I think that answers the question of which company is more 'evil'.

</flamebait>

Seriously though, this comes as no surprise. MS have been trying to gain some kind of market control over the internet since the early 90s and this is probably the strongest hand they've dealt to date.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Laurence
by pantheraleo on Tue 5th Jul 2011 17:28 UTC in reply to "Comment by Laurence"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Well I think that answers the question of which company is more 'evil'.


At least Microsoft didn't knowingly accept money from illegal pharmacies and then run ads selling addicting prescription drugs without a prescription to teenagers. Google was warned that these ads were from illegal pharmacies, and failed to take any action to remove them, which has now gotten them a fine from the FDA that may top $500 million dollars.

Censoring search results? Or helping to sell addicting and dangerous drugs to teenagers illegally? Hmm... I think I'm going to say the drug ads are more evil.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Laurence
by Kivada on Wed 6th Jul 2011 05:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Laurence"
Kivada Member since:
2010-07-07

Censoring search results? Or helping to sell addicting and dangerous drugs to teenagers illegally? Hmm... I think I'm going to say the drug ads are more evil.


So you're saying complicity in one of the most oppressive regimes in the world is somehow not worse then getting around to a potential bad site in their ad services in a more timely manner, when they service billions with a "B" pages?

You do know that most drugs, even the really addictive ones aren't all that bad for you right? They aren't some Barbra Bush anti drug after school special where a single vicodin given to an "innocent caucasian boy" by some "token brown kid" goes on a rampage, robbing convenience stores, running over some little girl riding a tricycle inexplicably through a fast food restaurant's parking lot and ends with him dieing via auto-erotic asphyxiation...

/sarcasim

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Laurence
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 13:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Laurence"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

You do know that most drugs, even the really addictive ones aren't all that bad for you right?


These were not marijuana ads or something. They were ads for commercial prescription drugs, which when taken in quantities large enough to cause psychotropic effects, actually are quite dangerous.

The initial investigation started because of a spike in the number of teenagers who were showing up at emergency rooms dead on arrival because of prescription drug overdoses. Investigators were trying to figure out why the spike had occurred and where they were getting the drugs from. That's when it was discovered that pharmacies being advertised on Google ads were the source.

So you're saying complicity in one of the most oppressive regimes in the world


Again, Google initially agreed to comply with China's censorship demands. The censorship had nothing to do with why Google pulled out. This is simply an inaccurate statement on Thom's part. The pull out had to do with Google's accusations that the Chinese government had hacked into GMail accounts, as well as the fact that the Chinese market was simply proving to be unprofitable for Google.

is somehow not worse then getting around to a potential bad site in their ad services in a more timely manner, when they service billions with a "B" pages?


It was not one bad site. It was a lot of them. Google knew about them and did nothing. Kids died because of it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Wed 6th Jul 2011 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Laurence"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Again, Google initially agreed to comply with China's censorship demands. The censorship had nothing to do with why Google pulled out. This is simply an inaccurate statement on Thom's part. The pull out had to do with Google's accusations that the Chinese government had hacked into GMail accounts, as well as the fact that the Chinese market was simply proving to be unprofitable for Google.

While all that is true, you neglect to mention that Google still operate in China. Just via Hong Kong where they can provide uncensored results.



It was not one bad site. It was a lot of them. Google knew about them and did nothing. Kids died because of it.

I agree it's terrible, but Google are not to blame for the kids dieing. Google did not force the kids to buy those drugs let alone take them. Kids shouldn't need explaining to that buying prescription drugs illegally online from a non-trusted source and then taking them recreationally is a *STUPID* idea.

Google are only responsible for the adverts. While it was their responsibility to remove illegal adverts and they should have done, they are not responsible for the kids deaths. The kids killed themselves.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Laurence
by pantheraleo on Wed 6th Jul 2011 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Laurence"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07


While all that is true, you neglect to mention that Google still operate in China. Just via Hong Kong where they can provide uncensored results.


That's true. But that's also a giant can of worms. Technically, Hong Kong is part of China, yes. But it has its own laws, is not governed by China, and Hong Kong currency is not legal tender in China. Hong Kong is probably to China what Puerto Rico is to the United States. Technically owned by the United States, but for all practical purposes, not really a part of it.

Edited 2011-07-06 15:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Laurence
by Laurence on Wed 6th Jul 2011 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Laurence"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


At least Microsoft didn't knowingly accept money from illegal pharmacies and then run ads selling addicting prescription drugs without a prescription to teenagers. Google was warned that these ads were from illegal pharmacies, and failed to take any action to remove them, which has now gotten them a fine from the FDA that may top $500 million dollars.

Censoring search results? Or helping to sell addicting and dangerous drugs to teenagers illegally? Hmm... I think I'm going to say the drug ads are more evil.

I'm not endorsing Google's behavior on this one, but the idiots who think it's clever to buy prescription drugs online are just as much to blame.

It's like people who moan about viruses on their computer when they spend all evening downloading warez. They know what they're doing is illegal and they know they're acquiring their goods from an untrusted source so they should also have to take equal responsibility for their actions.

Sure, Google shouldn't be listing such sites. But equally Google doesn't force people to click the link, choose the drugs, enter their credit card details, accept the delivery and then physically consume the drugs. The users do this on their own free will.

Reply Score: 2

Also
by pantheraleo on Tue 5th Jul 2011 19:25 UTC
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

I would also point out that the reason they pulled out was not because of concerns over censorship. After all, Google had already agreed to the censorship in order to get into the Chinese market. The real reason they pulled out was because the Chinese market turned out to be unprofitable for Google. Chinese Internet users didn't like Google, and overwhelmingly preferred Baidu. Most users complained that Google didn't really understand the Chinese language, and because of that, its search results were inferior to those produced by Baidu which was written by and for the Chinese, and designed to understand the Chinese language from the beginning.

Baidu is basically China's Google. It was well entrenched as the dominant player in China. And Google was unable to make a dent in Baidu's market share, partly because Chinese users found Google to be inferior.

That's the real reason Google pulled out of China. China simply wasn't the gold mine that Google thought it would be.

Reply Score: 2

reform
by fran on Wed 6th Jul 2011 00:07 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

evil prevail when good people say .."its only business"

the pharmaceutical industry gets 20 year patents.

50 years for industrial ones is a crime against humanity

Reply Score: 2