<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_14_1539216</id>
	<title>Google.cn Still Remains In China</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1266164280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>hackingbear writes <i>"Google appears to be content to <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/02/ted-2010-google-optimistic-it-can-remain-in-china/">remain in China</a> doing business as usual while it finds a way to work <em>within the system</em>, according to one of the search giant's founders. This despite a strong statement 30 days ago that it would stop censoring search results in China and possibly pull its business out of that country. And the company is still <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684\_3-10452991-265.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0">unwilling to confirm or deny</a> if the alleged attacks were carried out by the Chinese government. 'I don't actually think the question of whether [the attacks were performed by] the Chinese government is that important,' Brin said. (That's the difference between state-sponsor vs. individual hacking. Why is that not important?) In the mean time, shortly after we celebrated <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/13/1322225/Googlecn-Has-Already-Lifted-Censorship?art\_pos=30">google.cn lifting censorship</a>, the exact same censorship has been quietly re-enabled as proved by <a href="http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&amp;q=\%E5\%85\%AD\%E5\%9B\%9B">this Chinese search query on June 4</a>, despite the lack of any concrete actions by the Chinese government, which has so far made only <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/14/1321218/China-Emphasizes-Laws-As-Google-Defies-Censorship?art\_pos=28">useless general and standard statements</a> on the matter."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>hackingbear writes " Google appears to be content to remain in China doing business as usual while it finds a way to work within the system , according to one of the search giant 's founders .
This despite a strong statement 30 days ago that it would stop censoring search results in China and possibly pull its business out of that country .
And the company is still unwilling to confirm or deny if the alleged attacks were carried out by the Chinese government .
'I do n't actually think the question of whether [ the attacks were performed by ] the Chinese government is that important, ' Brin said .
( That 's the difference between state-sponsor vs. individual hacking .
Why is that not important ?
) In the mean time , shortly after we celebrated google.cn lifting censorship , the exact same censorship has been quietly re-enabled as proved by this Chinese search query on June 4 , despite the lack of any concrete actions by the Chinese government , which has so far made only useless general and standard statements on the matter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hackingbear writes "Google appears to be content to remain in China doing business as usual while it finds a way to work within the system, according to one of the search giant's founders.
This despite a strong statement 30 days ago that it would stop censoring search results in China and possibly pull its business out of that country.
And the company is still unwilling to confirm or deny if the alleged attacks were carried out by the Chinese government.
'I don't actually think the question of whether [the attacks were performed by] the Chinese government is that important,' Brin said.
(That's the difference between state-sponsor vs. individual hacking.
Why is that not important?
) In the mean time, shortly after we celebrated google.cn lifting censorship, the exact same censorship has been quietly re-enabled as proved by this Chinese search query on June 4, despite the lack of any concrete actions by the Chinese government, which has so far made only useless general and standard statements on the matter.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135056</id>
	<title>Re: Google.cn Still Remains in China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266168960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, yeah...</p><p>Where else would you put it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yeah...Where else would you put it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yeah...Where else would you put it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31149894</id>
	<title>Re:My guess:</title>
	<author>dirtymentality</author>
	<datestamp>1266234600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China has now become the bogey man. Say your pledge of allegiance 3 times before bed like a good little boy or the evil chinese monsters will come out and eat you!

Ignorance. Fear. Paranoia.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China has now become the bogey man .
Say your pledge of allegiance 3 times before bed like a good little boy or the evil chinese monsters will come out and eat you !
Ignorance. Fear .
Paranoia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China has now become the bogey man.
Say your pledge of allegiance 3 times before bed like a good little boy or the evil chinese monsters will come out and eat you!
Ignorance. Fear.
Paranoia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032</id>
	<title>Mixed results</title>
	<author>Arancaytar</author>
	<datestamp>1266168720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's true that the tank man does not rank number one on "tiananmen" as it does on google.com - but if I type tiananmen into the search box, the top suggestions are</p><p>tiananmen square protest<br>tiananmen square 1989<br>tiananmen square tank<br>tiananmen tank<br>tiananmen square tank man<br>tiananmen tank man</p><p>And if I make the search more specific by adding "tank", I do get a few copies of the infamously censored image on page 1, even on Google.cn.</p><p>Of course, I haven't digged this deeply before, so I don't know if the censorship was always this half-assed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true that the tank man does not rank number one on " tiananmen " as it does on google.com - but if I type tiananmen into the search box , the top suggestions aretiananmen square protesttiananmen square 1989tiananmen square tanktiananmen tanktiananmen square tank mantiananmen tank manAnd if I make the search more specific by adding " tank " , I do get a few copies of the infamously censored image on page 1 , even on Google.cn.Of course , I have n't digged this deeply before , so I do n't know if the censorship was always this half-assed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true that the tank man does not rank number one on "tiananmen" as it does on google.com - but if I type tiananmen into the search box, the top suggestions aretiananmen square protesttiananmen square 1989tiananmen square tanktiananmen tanktiananmen square tank mantiananmen tank manAnd if I make the search more specific by adding "tank", I do get a few copies of the infamously censored image on page 1, even on Google.cn.Of course, I haven't digged this deeply before, so I don't know if the censorship was always this half-assed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136002</id>
	<title>Yes, but WHY?</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1266177900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given: the summary is correct. Why might Google do this? The tone of the summary seems to accuse them of doing so, and that this is bad, with 'proof' being statements taken out of context and placed within the context which is being implied. But you can't get from thesis to QED without some logical connections more than "we say so".</p><p>The Chinese (gov't.; from the ministry of defense offices) have been attacking private (initially US and UK based Falun Gong and Free Tibet sites) and government web sites and other systems for 10 years now. If they wanted to get away with it, rather than it being known they could and would do so, that's plenty of time to learn to do so. That's also plenty of time for the US et al. to make and/or cut a deal with China for it to stop. But they/we haven't been able to.</p><p>Google has more investment in seeing this outcome than the US government, and has more resources on the ground in China that can be bargained with in order to make it happen.</p><p>Google can make happen what the US can't. And they're trying to. Google is outperforming the US government in terms of dealing with China in the context of the net. And yet people insist on seeing this as Google's continued wrong doing. But why?</p><p>Censorship? Here comes a clue. Catch: Most of the people in China want it. Nobody outside that nation has a right to tell it how to operate. And if those outside that country are dedicated to democracy as they claim, they wouldn't want to over ride the wishes of those people or their government. You can not like the fact that censorship is the choice of that country, and that's about all you can do, or you can prove yourselves hypocrites by supporting what amounts to subversion of the government of the world's largest nation.</p><p>As a business, Google doesn't pretend to such principles. They can exercise their options over the full range of possible behaviors. They can, in this fashion, accomplish what the US and others have been claiming they want to see happen -- an end to China's computer based hostilities. So, would you rather Google accomplish what people have been claiming they want to see China do -- stop the attacks -- or would you rather Google adhere to a set of principles that were someone attempting to do so upon you and yours, you'd consider and even worse attack? And should you see being forced into this choice as a kind of blackmail, welcome to global politics as practiced by most nations, according to the game rules set down and practiced by the US and allies. And last we looked, China was an ally no less than Israel (just as an example, not as a specific point to make), who doesn't engage in computer warfare with the US, but does engage in good old fashioned espionage against us.</p><p>Whether can't or won't, the US isn't stopping China and can't let itself cut the kind of deal Google can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given : the summary is correct .
Why might Google do this ?
The tone of the summary seems to accuse them of doing so , and that this is bad , with 'proof ' being statements taken out of context and placed within the context which is being implied .
But you ca n't get from thesis to QED without some logical connections more than " we say so " .The Chinese ( gov't .
; from the ministry of defense offices ) have been attacking private ( initially US and UK based Falun Gong and Free Tibet sites ) and government web sites and other systems for 10 years now .
If they wanted to get away with it , rather than it being known they could and would do so , that 's plenty of time to learn to do so .
That 's also plenty of time for the US et al .
to make and/or cut a deal with China for it to stop .
But they/we have n't been able to.Google has more investment in seeing this outcome than the US government , and has more resources on the ground in China that can be bargained with in order to make it happen.Google can make happen what the US ca n't .
And they 're trying to .
Google is outperforming the US government in terms of dealing with China in the context of the net .
And yet people insist on seeing this as Google 's continued wrong doing .
But why ? Censorship ?
Here comes a clue .
Catch : Most of the people in China want it .
Nobody outside that nation has a right to tell it how to operate .
And if those outside that country are dedicated to democracy as they claim , they would n't want to over ride the wishes of those people or their government .
You can not like the fact that censorship is the choice of that country , and that 's about all you can do , or you can prove yourselves hypocrites by supporting what amounts to subversion of the government of the world 's largest nation.As a business , Google does n't pretend to such principles .
They can exercise their options over the full range of possible behaviors .
They can , in this fashion , accomplish what the US and others have been claiming they want to see happen -- an end to China 's computer based hostilities .
So , would you rather Google accomplish what people have been claiming they want to see China do -- stop the attacks -- or would you rather Google adhere to a set of principles that were someone attempting to do so upon you and yours , you 'd consider and even worse attack ?
And should you see being forced into this choice as a kind of blackmail , welcome to global politics as practiced by most nations , according to the game rules set down and practiced by the US and allies .
And last we looked , China was an ally no less than Israel ( just as an example , not as a specific point to make ) , who does n't engage in computer warfare with the US , but does engage in good old fashioned espionage against us.Whether ca n't or wo n't , the US is n't stopping China and ca n't let itself cut the kind of deal Google can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given: the summary is correct.
Why might Google do this?
The tone of the summary seems to accuse them of doing so, and that this is bad, with 'proof' being statements taken out of context and placed within the context which is being implied.
But you can't get from thesis to QED without some logical connections more than "we say so".The Chinese (gov't.
; from the ministry of defense offices) have been attacking private (initially US and UK based Falun Gong and Free Tibet sites) and government web sites and other systems for 10 years now.
If they wanted to get away with it, rather than it being known they could and would do so, that's plenty of time to learn to do so.
That's also plenty of time for the US et al.
to make and/or cut a deal with China for it to stop.
But they/we haven't been able to.Google has more investment in seeing this outcome than the US government, and has more resources on the ground in China that can be bargained with in order to make it happen.Google can make happen what the US can't.
And they're trying to.
Google is outperforming the US government in terms of dealing with China in the context of the net.
And yet people insist on seeing this as Google's continued wrong doing.
But why?Censorship?
Here comes a clue.
Catch: Most of the people in China want it.
Nobody outside that nation has a right to tell it how to operate.
And if those outside that country are dedicated to democracy as they claim, they wouldn't want to over ride the wishes of those people or their government.
You can not like the fact that censorship is the choice of that country, and that's about all you can do, or you can prove yourselves hypocrites by supporting what amounts to subversion of the government of the world's largest nation.As a business, Google doesn't pretend to such principles.
They can exercise their options over the full range of possible behaviors.
They can, in this fashion, accomplish what the US and others have been claiming they want to see happen -- an end to China's computer based hostilities.
So, would you rather Google accomplish what people have been claiming they want to see China do -- stop the attacks -- or would you rather Google adhere to a set of principles that were someone attempting to do so upon you and yours, you'd consider and even worse attack?
And should you see being forced into this choice as a kind of blackmail, welcome to global politics as practiced by most nations, according to the game rules set down and practiced by the US and allies.
And last we looked, China was an ally no less than Israel (just as an example, not as a specific point to make), who doesn't engage in computer warfare with the US, but does engage in good old fashioned espionage against us.Whether can't or won't, the US isn't stopping China and can't let itself cut the kind of deal Google can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31137346</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed results</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266144000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've heard that the results are different if you use chinese characters instead of english/roman/whatever characters.  Perhaps someone with more time who wants to earn some karma can dig up the equivalent in chinese characters?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've heard that the results are different if you use chinese characters instead of english/roman/whatever characters .
Perhaps someone with more time who wants to earn some karma can dig up the equivalent in chinese characters ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've heard that the results are different if you use chinese characters instead of english/roman/whatever characters.
Perhaps someone with more time who wants to earn some karma can dig up the equivalent in chinese characters?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136302</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Move</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1266180540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 6 months 99\% of Google's customers wont remember this. It was too expensive for them to pull out, i'm honestly surprised they said they were going to in the first place..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 6 months 99 \ % of Google 's customers wont remember this .
It was too expensive for them to pull out , i 'm honestly surprised they said they were going to in the first place. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 6 months 99\% of Google's customers wont remember this.
It was too expensive for them to pull out, i'm honestly surprised they said they were going to in the first place..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135022</id>
	<title>Bad Move</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266168660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The quickest thing Google can do to lose the confidence of its users is be Two-Faced. With all the recent privacy concerns, if Google starts acting one way after saying "Don't be Evil," it's going to make everyone question if Google can be trusted. Can they?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The quickest thing Google can do to lose the confidence of its users is be Two-Faced .
With all the recent privacy concerns , if Google starts acting one way after saying " Do n't be Evil , " it 's going to make everyone question if Google can be trusted .
Can they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The quickest thing Google can do to lose the confidence of its users is be Two-Faced.
With all the recent privacy concerns, if Google starts acting one way after saying "Don't be Evil," it's going to make everyone question if Google can be trusted.
Can they?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136488</id>
	<title>HAHAHAHAHAHAHA</title>
	<author>superyanthrax</author>
	<datestamp>1266138600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guess Google couldn't live without it's 25\% market share in China. Clearly it needs the cash. We don't need Google, but Google needs us, and that's a fact.
<br> <br>
All you morons who thought Google would actually cause China to cave and not the other way around, how does that crow taste?
<br> <br>
Also, what a retarded article summary, clearly if they didn't follow our laws we were going to kick them out of China, the "concrete action" the summary refers to. The implicit threat of this was obviously enough for them to cave. Again, we don't need Google, but Google needs us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess Google could n't live without it 's 25 \ % market share in China .
Clearly it needs the cash .
We do n't need Google , but Google needs us , and that 's a fact .
All you morons who thought Google would actually cause China to cave and not the other way around , how does that crow taste ?
Also , what a retarded article summary , clearly if they did n't follow our laws we were going to kick them out of China , the " concrete action " the summary refers to .
The implicit threat of this was obviously enough for them to cave .
Again , we do n't need Google , but Google needs us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess Google couldn't live without it's 25\% market share in China.
Clearly it needs the cash.
We don't need Google, but Google needs us, and that's a fact.
All you morons who thought Google would actually cause China to cave and not the other way around, how does that crow taste?
Also, what a retarded article summary, clearly if they didn't follow our laws we were going to kick them out of China, the "concrete action" the summary refers to.
The implicit threat of this was obviously enough for them to cave.
Again, we don't need Google, but Google needs us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136468</id>
	<title>War of Internet Addiction</title>
	<author>kencf0618</author>
	<datestamp>1266138480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out the WoW machinima --it's had resonance far beyond the gaming community.</p><p><a href="http://digicha.com/?p=125" title="digicha.com" rel="nofollow">http://digicha.com/?p=125</a> [digicha.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out the WoW machinima --it 's had resonance far beyond the gaming community.http : //digicha.com/ ? p = 125 [ digicha.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out the WoW machinima --it's had resonance far beyond the gaming community.http://digicha.com/?p=125 [digicha.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135168</id>
	<title>But you are doing the search from a Chinese IP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266170160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google knows if your origin IP is chinese. I'm sure you get different results for google.cn if you are in china or out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google knows if your origin IP is chinese .
I 'm sure you get different results for google.cn if you are in china or out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google knows if your origin IP is chinese.
I'm sure you get different results for google.cn if you are in china or out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135050</id>
	<title>Doing a deal with the devil</title>
	<author>NetNinja</author>
	<datestamp>1266168840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doing business with a country where freedom of information is counter productive to your business model makes no sense.</p><p>when money is God WHO CARES RIGHT?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Doing business with a country where freedom of information is counter productive to your business model makes no sense.when money is God WHO CARES RIGHT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doing business with a country where freedom of information is counter productive to your business model makes no sense.when money is God WHO CARES RIGHT?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31137196</id>
	<title>FroSt pist!?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266143040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">people's faces at Mor-e grandiose when done playing NIGGER AASOCIATION profits without ALIKE TO REAP</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>people 's faces at Mor-e grandiose when done playing NIGGER AASOCIATION profits without ALIKE TO REAP [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people's faces at Mor-e grandiose when done playing NIGGER AASOCIATION profits without ALIKE TO REAP [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135662</id>
	<title>Re:That didn't take long.</title>
	<author>trapnest</author>
	<datestamp>1266174600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>u mad?</htmltext>
<tokenext>u mad ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>u mad?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136094</id>
	<title>Re:Incorrect information in the summary</title>
	<author>hackingbear</author>
	<datestamp>1266178860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary discloses the filter has been re-enabled since it was transiently lift. That can be verified by going to google.cn and do a search in Chinese. It does not counter google's claim of "will leave".
</p><p>There is no substantial report of exactly which department the company is negotiating with, and from Chinese news sources oversea or in Hong Kong, some departments came out and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google\_China#cite\_note-22" title="wikipedia.org">denied</a> [wikipedia.org] any negotiation on going or that the company has made any formal complain. One would expect the government agency to act quickly on such high-profile case.
</p><p>maybe it is just a populist marketing stunt by google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary discloses the filter has been re-enabled since it was transiently lift .
That can be verified by going to google.cn and do a search in Chinese .
It does not counter google 's claim of " will leave " .
There is no substantial report of exactly which department the company is negotiating with , and from Chinese news sources oversea or in Hong Kong , some departments came out and denied [ wikipedia.org ] any negotiation on going or that the company has made any formal complain .
One would expect the government agency to act quickly on such high-profile case .
maybe it is just a populist marketing stunt by google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary discloses the filter has been re-enabled since it was transiently lift.
That can be verified by going to google.cn and do a search in Chinese.
It does not counter google's claim of "will leave".
There is no substantial report of exactly which department the company is negotiating with, and from Chinese news sources oversea or in Hong Kong, some departments came out and denied [wikipedia.org] any negotiation on going or that the company has made any formal complain.
One would expect the government agency to act quickly on such high-profile case.
maybe it is just a populist marketing stunt by google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135208</id>
	<title>is chinese for 'tank man' ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266170640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&amp;source=hp&amp;q=&amp;btnG=Google+&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=</p><p>get's you the images of the tank man.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.google.cn/search ? hl = zh-CN&amp;source = hp&amp;q = &amp;btnG = Google + &amp;aq = f&amp;oq = get 's you the images of the tank man .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&amp;source=hp&amp;q=&amp;btnG=Google+&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=get's you the images of the tank man.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135858</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed results</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1266176700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It could just be that the newly uncensored results are still inheriting their lame PageRank standings that got choked by censorship.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It could just be that the newly uncensored results are still inheriting their lame PageRank standings that got choked by censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It could just be that the newly uncensored results are still inheriting their lame PageRank standings that got choked by censorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134980</id>
	<title>Not really a surprise.</title>
	<author>cosm</author>
	<datestamp>1266168180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look this way while I go the other.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look this way while I go the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look this way while I go the other.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135502</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed results</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266173280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not Mixed Results, obvious censorship.</p><p>I search "tiananmen square tank" on google.com, go to images, I get over 100 images.<br>I search "tiananmen square tank" on google.cn,  go to images, I get over 1 images, which when clicked on, gets me a curt line of chinese text, instead of whatever page that image came from.</p><p>So there is nothing mixed about it, google is censoring chinese communications on behalf of the chinese government.  There is no doubt in my mind they do, and will continue to do whatever Chinese , U.S. or other governments ask them to do.  Someday the U.S. will concoct some emergency, and will require google to give them all of their user data, and google will comply.  So act accordingly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not Mixed Results , obvious censorship.I search " tiananmen square tank " on google.com , go to images , I get over 100 images.I search " tiananmen square tank " on google.cn , go to images , I get over 1 images , which when clicked on , gets me a curt line of chinese text , instead of whatever page that image came from.So there is nothing mixed about it , google is censoring chinese communications on behalf of the chinese government .
There is no doubt in my mind they do , and will continue to do whatever Chinese , U.S. or other governments ask them to do .
Someday the U.S. will concoct some emergency , and will require google to give them all of their user data , and google will comply .
So act accordingly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not Mixed Results, obvious censorship.I search "tiananmen square tank" on google.com, go to images, I get over 100 images.I search "tiananmen square tank" on google.cn,  go to images, I get over 1 images, which when clicked on, gets me a curt line of chinese text, instead of whatever page that image came from.So there is nothing mixed about it, google is censoring chinese communications on behalf of the chinese government.
There is no doubt in my mind they do, and will continue to do whatever Chinese , U.S. or other governments ask them to do.
Someday the U.S. will concoct some emergency, and will require google to give them all of their user data, and google will comply.
So act accordingly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135814</id>
	<title>Re:Too expensive to not be evil</title>
	<author>Nidi62</author>
	<datestamp>1266176160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not being evil isn't too expensive.  It just tends to get in the way of making profits.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not being evil is n't too expensive .
It just tends to get in the way of making profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not being evil isn't too expensive.
It just tends to get in the way of making profits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136708</id>
	<title>I'm  very glad that Sergey Brin realized this</title>
	<author>justkeeper</author>
	<datestamp>1266139920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"I think that the Chinese government has tens of millions of people in it. If you look at the army, the associated army, and whatnot, that's larger than most countries by far. So even if there were a Chinese government agent behind it, you know, it might represent a fragment of policy, as it were." from TFA</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I think that the Chinese government has tens of millions of people in it .
If you look at the army , the associated army , and whatnot , that 's larger than most countries by far .
So even if there were a Chinese government agent behind it , you know , it might represent a fragment of policy , as it were .
" from TFA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I think that the Chinese government has tens of millions of people in it.
If you look at the army, the associated army, and whatnot, that's larger than most countries by far.
So even if there were a Chinese government agent behind it, you know, it might represent a fragment of policy, as it were.
" from TFA</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31137138</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed results</title>
	<author>Brian Quinlan</author>
	<datestamp>1266142740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you <a href="http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&amp;source=hp&amp;q=tank+man&amp;btnG=Google+&amp;\%2332034;&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=" title="google.cn" rel="nofollow">search for tank man directly</a> [google.cn] then you get thousands of results including 4 pictures of him in front of the tanks at the top of the results page.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you search for tank man directly [ google.cn ] then you get thousands of results including 4 pictures of him in front of the tanks at the top of the results page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you search for tank man directly [google.cn] then you get thousands of results including 4 pictures of him in front of the tanks at the top of the results page.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136284</id>
	<title>Who expected it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266180480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In business as in life, if you feel you are in an uncomfortable situation and have exhausted the clear possibilities open to you, so that you are going to take unilateral action - you TAKE IT, you don't announce that you 'intend to take it'.</p><p>If Google WAS happy with Chinese censorship policies (and hence as mercenary as they are accused of) they clearly wouldn't even have raised this in the first place. There was clearly nothing to gain and no reason to 'appease' a strong anti-Google activist group (if such even exists) in the short term, given that these same would feel let down a short time later.</p><p>This was simply a negotiation ploy. Google doesn't have a 100\% do-or-die stance towards \_anything\_, but they are clearly not comfortable with the censorship either, and the thing to do then is to try to get your way. Trying to get your way means applying leverage and pressure, such as veiled threats and implications. I would actually say that the massive public reaction WEAKENED Google's hand, because the public expectation for action was so strong that when they had to let that down it became blatantly obvious that it was an empty threat. Google was probably taken aback at the publicity as well. The Chinese could call back three days later and ask "Well, when do you leave?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In business as in life , if you feel you are in an uncomfortable situation and have exhausted the clear possibilities open to you , so that you are going to take unilateral action - you TAKE IT , you do n't announce that you 'intend to take it'.If Google WAS happy with Chinese censorship policies ( and hence as mercenary as they are accused of ) they clearly would n't even have raised this in the first place .
There was clearly nothing to gain and no reason to 'appease ' a strong anti-Google activist group ( if such even exists ) in the short term , given that these same would feel let down a short time later.This was simply a negotiation ploy .
Google does n't have a 100 \ % do-or-die stance towards \ _anything \ _ , but they are clearly not comfortable with the censorship either , and the thing to do then is to try to get your way .
Trying to get your way means applying leverage and pressure , such as veiled threats and implications .
I would actually say that the massive public reaction WEAKENED Google 's hand , because the public expectation for action was so strong that when they had to let that down it became blatantly obvious that it was an empty threat .
Google was probably taken aback at the publicity as well .
The Chinese could call back three days later and ask " Well , when do you leave ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In business as in life, if you feel you are in an uncomfortable situation and have exhausted the clear possibilities open to you, so that you are going to take unilateral action - you TAKE IT, you don't announce that you 'intend to take it'.If Google WAS happy with Chinese censorship policies (and hence as mercenary as they are accused of) they clearly wouldn't even have raised this in the first place.
There was clearly nothing to gain and no reason to 'appease' a strong anti-Google activist group (if such even exists) in the short term, given that these same would feel let down a short time later.This was simply a negotiation ploy.
Google doesn't have a 100\% do-or-die stance towards \_anything\_, but they are clearly not comfortable with the censorship either, and the thing to do then is to try to get your way.
Trying to get your way means applying leverage and pressure, such as veiled threats and implications.
I would actually say that the massive public reaction WEAKENED Google's hand, because the public expectation for action was so strong that when they had to let that down it became blatantly obvious that it was an empty threat.
Google was probably taken aback at the publicity as well.
The Chinese could call back three days later and ask "Well, when do you leave?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135772</id>
	<title>Bill Gates bats for totalitarian POV</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266175740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of China's communist controlled tabloids recently printed this headline <a href="http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6879821.html" title="peopledaily.com.cn" rel="nofollow">Bill Gates bats for China</a> [peopledaily.com.cn].  Perhaps Google should be faulted for tolerating China's totalitarian regime, but Microsoft embraces it.  After all, when Gates says, <i>"The Chinese efforts to censor the Internet have been very limited."</i>, he means that you can access Microsoft.com and MSN in China.  He's happy enough that all potential threats to both the Communist and Microsoft power structure, (facebook, blogspot, youtube, wikipedia, google...) are blocked or filtered in China.  I was somewhat surprised (maybe I shouldn't have been), that the Chinese government seems to have a default blacklist policy.  New webdomains are blocked even though they have almost no content (much less content critical of this government.)  The people of China are wonderful, they deserve much more than the current regime has any intention of providing.  We can thank Bill Gates of Microsoft for looking the other way while the government of a country where he stands to make billions leaves its own people in poverty.  Wal-Mart and many other corporations have the same "don't ask, don't tell" policy when dealing with China's or indeed any other totalitarian government.  Thank you Google for at least showing the world that the emperor has no clothes.  Many of us will always respect that.  And whether it is tomorrow or 1000 years from now, when the good people of China finally find their way out from under their government's oppression, they will thank you too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of China 's communist controlled tabloids recently printed this headline Bill Gates bats for China [ peopledaily.com.cn ] .
Perhaps Google should be faulted for tolerating China 's totalitarian regime , but Microsoft embraces it .
After all , when Gates says , " The Chinese efforts to censor the Internet have been very limited .
" , he means that you can access Microsoft.com and MSN in China .
He 's happy enough that all potential threats to both the Communist and Microsoft power structure , ( facebook , blogspot , youtube , wikipedia , google... ) are blocked or filtered in China .
I was somewhat surprised ( maybe I should n't have been ) , that the Chinese government seems to have a default blacklist policy .
New webdomains are blocked even though they have almost no content ( much less content critical of this government .
) The people of China are wonderful , they deserve much more than the current regime has any intention of providing .
We can thank Bill Gates of Microsoft for looking the other way while the government of a country where he stands to make billions leaves its own people in poverty .
Wal-Mart and many other corporations have the same " do n't ask , do n't tell " policy when dealing with China 's or indeed any other totalitarian government .
Thank you Google for at least showing the world that the emperor has no clothes .
Many of us will always respect that .
And whether it is tomorrow or 1000 years from now , when the good people of China finally find their way out from under their government 's oppression , they will thank you too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of China's communist controlled tabloids recently printed this headline Bill Gates bats for China [peopledaily.com.cn].
Perhaps Google should be faulted for tolerating China's totalitarian regime, but Microsoft embraces it.
After all, when Gates says, "The Chinese efforts to censor the Internet have been very limited.
", he means that you can access Microsoft.com and MSN in China.
He's happy enough that all potential threats to both the Communist and Microsoft power structure, (facebook, blogspot, youtube, wikipedia, google...) are blocked or filtered in China.
I was somewhat surprised (maybe I shouldn't have been), that the Chinese government seems to have a default blacklist policy.
New webdomains are blocked even though they have almost no content (much less content critical of this government.
)  The people of China are wonderful, they deserve much more than the current regime has any intention of providing.
We can thank Bill Gates of Microsoft for looking the other way while the government of a country where he stands to make billions leaves its own people in poverty.
Wal-Mart and many other corporations have the same "don't ask, don't tell" policy when dealing with China's or indeed any other totalitarian government.
Thank you Google for at least showing the world that the emperor has no clothes.
Many of us will always respect that.
And whether it is tomorrow or 1000 years from now, when the good people of China finally find their way out from under their government's oppression, they will thank you too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944</id>
	<title>That didn't take long.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266168000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And here we thought Google had a strong backbone to stand up to china. Apparently not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And here we thought Google had a strong backbone to stand up to china .
Apparently not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here we thought Google had a strong backbone to stand up to china.
Apparently not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135352</id>
	<title>Re:That didn't take long.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266172080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think none of us actually knows what's going on behind the scenes between Google and the Chinese government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think none of us actually knows what 's going on behind the scenes between Google and the Chinese government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think none of us actually knows what's going on behind the scenes between Google and the Chinese government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135188</id>
	<title>Incorrect information in the summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266170220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the exact same censorship has been quietly re-enabled</p></div></blockquote><p>Take a closer look at the source of that information. Google didn't lift the censorship and then re-enable it. Who was the source claiming that the censorship had already been lifted? If you look on the source that the slashdot article cites, that source says the rumors about the censorship having been lifted already were not correct. So, it seems no changes have been made to the search results yet. Did Google ever make a statement about how long time they would be willing to spend with the Chinese government on working out a solution? The way I read the announcement is that Google will spend a period negotiating with the Chinese government, and if it doesn't produce any results, they will shut down google.cn. The problem is, I don't know how long that period is going to be. If Google had stated, that it's patience would last another month, and they didn't make a move yet, they haven't stood by their word. But I haven't seen a statement from Google saying one month. I would have been surprised if such negotiations could have finished in a single month. Does anybody here have experience negotiating with the Chinese government? Can you tell us how fast results can be reached?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the exact same censorship has been quietly re-enabledTake a closer look at the source of that information .
Google did n't lift the censorship and then re-enable it .
Who was the source claiming that the censorship had already been lifted ?
If you look on the source that the slashdot article cites , that source says the rumors about the censorship having been lifted already were not correct .
So , it seems no changes have been made to the search results yet .
Did Google ever make a statement about how long time they would be willing to spend with the Chinese government on working out a solution ?
The way I read the announcement is that Google will spend a period negotiating with the Chinese government , and if it does n't produce any results , they will shut down google.cn .
The problem is , I do n't know how long that period is going to be .
If Google had stated , that it 's patience would last another month , and they did n't make a move yet , they have n't stood by their word .
But I have n't seen a statement from Google saying one month .
I would have been surprised if such negotiations could have finished in a single month .
Does anybody here have experience negotiating with the Chinese government ?
Can you tell us how fast results can be reached ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the exact same censorship has been quietly re-enabledTake a closer look at the source of that information.
Google didn't lift the censorship and then re-enable it.
Who was the source claiming that the censorship had already been lifted?
If you look on the source that the slashdot article cites, that source says the rumors about the censorship having been lifted already were not correct.
So, it seems no changes have been made to the search results yet.
Did Google ever make a statement about how long time they would be willing to spend with the Chinese government on working out a solution?
The way I read the announcement is that Google will spend a period negotiating with the Chinese government, and if it doesn't produce any results, they will shut down google.cn.
The problem is, I don't know how long that period is going to be.
If Google had stated, that it's patience would last another month, and they didn't make a move yet, they haven't stood by their word.
But I haven't seen a statement from Google saying one month.
I would have been surprised if such negotiations could have finished in a single month.
Does anybody here have experience negotiating with the Chinese government?
Can you tell us how fast results can be reached?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135906</id>
	<title>Re:That didn't take long.</title>
	<author>Virak</author>
	<datestamp>1266177060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because the summary is terrible, and so is the person who wrote it, and also the Slashdot editors, for posting it.</p><blockquote><div><p>Google appears to be content to remain in China doing business as usual while it finds a way to work within the system, according to one of the search giant's founders. This despite a strong statement 30 days ago that it would stop censoring search results in China and possibly pull its business out of that country.</p></div></blockquote><p>The usage of "despite" here would suggest there's some sort of contradiction betweeen these sentences, however Google's original post said:</p><blockquote><div><p>We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which is to say, the lack of obvious action thus far isn't particularly notable. When it's been half a year and there's been no further news, then you can start bitching, but not now.</p><blockquote><div><p>In the mean time, shortly after we celebrated google.cn lifting censorship, the exact same censorship has been quietly re-enabled</p></div></blockquote><p>And this part is just outright false. They were never disabled in the first place, as noted even by several comments in the article that was linked to there. Furthermore, Google's announcement never said anything like that they'd be immediately removing the censorship.</p><p>Basically, there's nothing of note here and anyone whining about how Google hasn't pulled out and uncensored their search engine and organized an elite team to overthrow the oppressive Chinese government and given everyone on Earth their own personal unicorn has gotten vastly inflated expectations due to poor reading comprehension.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because the summary is terrible , and so is the person who wrote it , and also the Slashdot editors , for posting it.Google appears to be content to remain in China doing business as usual while it finds a way to work within the system , according to one of the search giant 's founders .
This despite a strong statement 30 days ago that it would stop censoring search results in China and possibly pull its business out of that country.The usage of " despite " here would suggest there 's some sort of contradiction betweeen these sentences , however Google 's original post said : We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn , and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law , if at all .
We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn , and potentially our offices in China.Which is to say , the lack of obvious action thus far is n't particularly notable .
When it 's been half a year and there 's been no further news , then you can start bitching , but not now.In the mean time , shortly after we celebrated google.cn lifting censorship , the exact same censorship has been quietly re-enabledAnd this part is just outright false .
They were never disabled in the first place , as noted even by several comments in the article that was linked to there .
Furthermore , Google 's announcement never said anything like that they 'd be immediately removing the censorship.Basically , there 's nothing of note here and anyone whining about how Google has n't pulled out and uncensored their search engine and organized an elite team to overthrow the oppressive Chinese government and given everyone on Earth their own personal unicorn has gotten vastly inflated expectations due to poor reading comprehension .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because the summary is terrible, and so is the person who wrote it, and also the Slashdot editors, for posting it.Google appears to be content to remain in China doing business as usual while it finds a way to work within the system, according to one of the search giant's founders.
This despite a strong statement 30 days ago that it would stop censoring search results in China and possibly pull its business out of that country.The usage of "despite" here would suggest there's some sort of contradiction betweeen these sentences, however Google's original post said:We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all.
We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.Which is to say, the lack of obvious action thus far isn't particularly notable.
When it's been half a year and there's been no further news, then you can start bitching, but not now.In the mean time, shortly after we celebrated google.cn lifting censorship, the exact same censorship has been quietly re-enabledAnd this part is just outright false.
They were never disabled in the first place, as noted even by several comments in the article that was linked to there.
Furthermore, Google's announcement never said anything like that they'd be immediately removing the censorship.Basically, there's nothing of note here and anyone whining about how Google hasn't pulled out and uncensored their search engine and organized an elite team to overthrow the oppressive Chinese government and given everyone on Earth their own personal unicorn has gotten vastly inflated expectations due to poor reading comprehension.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135178</id>
	<title>My guess:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266170160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some special Chinese agent made a visit at Brin&rsquo;s house at night, reminding him that they could make him disappear &ldquo;just like that&rdquo;.</p><p>I hope not. But it would not surprise me a bit if this was how it happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some special Chinese agent made a visit at Brin    s house at night , reminding him that they could make him disappear    just like that    .I hope not .
But it would not surprise me a bit if this was how it happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some special Chinese agent made a visit at Brin’s house at night, reminding him that they could make him disappear “just like that”.I hope not.
But it would not surprise me a bit if this was how it happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135290</id>
	<title>Well of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266171420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone at Google obviously understands politics and the sheep that "believe." Say one thing and do another. For example, W - I want a humble foreign policy, no nation building etc. Obama - I am going to bring the troops home, I am going to close Guantanamo. Blah Blah Blah. The suckers buy it every time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone at Google obviously understands politics and the sheep that " believe .
" Say one thing and do another .
For example , W - I want a humble foreign policy , no nation building etc .
Obama - I am going to bring the troops home , I am going to close Guantanamo .
Blah Blah Blah .
The suckers buy it every time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone at Google obviously understands politics and the sheep that "believe.
" Say one thing and do another.
For example, W - I want a humble foreign policy, no nation building etc.
Obama - I am going to bring the troops home, I am going to close Guantanamo.
Blah Blah Blah.
The suckers buy it every time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135154</id>
	<title>Re:That didn't take long.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266170040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And here we thought Google had a strong backbone to stand up to china. Apparently not.</p></div><p>You're surprised?  Did you REALLY believe that "do no evil" bullshit from a company whose founders bought themselves a private jumbo jet?</p><p>And Google is not just ANY company:  they're a FUCKING AD AGENCY!  They make their money by SELLING ADS. "Do no evil" from an AD AGENCY?!?!?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here we thought Google had a strong backbone to stand up to china .
Apparently not.You 're surprised ?
Did you REALLY believe that " do no evil " bullshit from a company whose founders bought themselves a private jumbo jet ? And Google is not just ANY company : they 're a FUCKING AD AGENCY !
They make their money by SELLING ADS .
" Do no evil " from an AD AGENCY ? ! ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here we thought Google had a strong backbone to stand up to china.
Apparently not.You're surprised?
Did you REALLY believe that "do no evil" bullshit from a company whose founders bought themselves a private jumbo jet?And Google is not just ANY company:  they're a FUCKING AD AGENCY!
They make their money by SELLING ADS.
"Do no evil" from an AD AGENCY?!?!?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135836</id>
	<title>The buck stops in China evidently...</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1266176400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not that I was expecting any better from them.  Too much money involved.  Still, doesn't stop me from being disappointed anyhow.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not that I was expecting any better from them .
Too much money involved .
Still , does n't stop me from being disappointed anyhow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not that I was expecting any better from them.
Too much money involved.
Still, doesn't stop me from being disappointed anyhow.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134986</id>
	<title>Pussies n/t</title>
	<author>Tyler Durden</author>
	<datestamp>1266168300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-Filter prevention-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-Filter prevention-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-Filter prevention-</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135294</id>
	<title>Re: Google.cn Still Remains in China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266171480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well, yeah...</p><p>Where else would you put it?</p></div><p>Australia?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yeah...Where else would you put it ? Australia ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yeah...Where else would you put it?Australia?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31137546</id>
	<title>Why do people care what google.cn says?</title>
	<author>Evro</author>
	<datestamp>1266145260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't the important thing what Google.cn returns for someone in the USA, it's what it returns for someone in China.  Why would the censoring be done by site rather than by querying IP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't the important thing what Google.cn returns for someone in the USA , it 's what it returns for someone in China .
Why would the censoring be done by site rather than by querying IP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't the important thing what Google.cn returns for someone in the USA, it's what it returns for someone in China.
Why would the censoring be done by site rather than by querying IP?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31138092</id>
	<title>Google Reality Check</title>
	<author>i\_want\_you\_to\_throw\_</author>
	<datestamp>1266149280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google, as a publicly traded company, has only one obligation: <b>to make a profit for shareholders</b>. Let that soak in.
<br> <br>
In doing so they have to do things like bow to the Chinese, track all of your searches, etc. It's business folks!
<br> <br>
Unfortunately that also means that &quot;do no evil&quot;, is more of a guideline than a rule. Maybe they should change their motto to &quot;We do less evil than everyone else&quot;<br> <br>
Really I'm amazed that anyone is surprised by this.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , as a publicly traded company , has only one obligation : to make a profit for shareholders .
Let that soak in .
In doing so they have to do things like bow to the Chinese , track all of your searches , etc .
It 's business folks !
Unfortunately that also means that " do no evil " , is more of a guideline than a rule .
Maybe they should change their motto to " We do less evil than everyone else " Really I 'm amazed that anyone is surprised by this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, as a publicly traded company, has only one obligation: to make a profit for shareholders.
Let that soak in.
In doing so they have to do things like bow to the Chinese, track all of your searches, etc.
It's business folks!
Unfortunately that also means that "do no evil", is more of a guideline than a rule.
Maybe they should change their motto to "We do less evil than everyone else" 
Really I'm amazed that anyone is surprised by this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135602</id>
	<title>Re:That didn't take long.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266174180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This was for Google a strategic blunder of epic proportions. Never go on the attack if you can't follow up on it. Before this all happened, China had to consider the possibility that Google would pull out or refuse to censor, but now China knows that Google will bow to their every wish. Good going!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This was for Google a strategic blunder of epic proportions .
Never go on the attack if you ca n't follow up on it .
Before this all happened , China had to consider the possibility that Google would pull out or refuse to censor , but now China knows that Google will bow to their every wish .
Good going !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was for Google a strategic blunder of epic proportions.
Never go on the attack if you can't follow up on it.
Before this all happened, China had to consider the possibility that Google would pull out or refuse to censor, but now China knows that Google will bow to their every wish.
Good going!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135014</id>
	<title>Right.</title>
	<author>TheSpoom</author>
	<datestamp>1266168540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Top businesspeople in company overrule moral arguments from staff in order to ensure future profits.</p><p>News at eleven.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Top businesspeople in company overrule moral arguments from staff in order to ensure future profits.News at eleven .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Top businesspeople in company overrule moral arguments from staff in order to ensure future profits.News at eleven.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135732</id>
	<title>Not important? WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266175320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So Brin now says that it's not important, whether or not the Chinese gov't is behind the attack? WTF? Of course it's important, it makes all the difference in the world if this is state sponsored. And I thought Google was growing a spine, apparently not. Move along, nothing to see here...</p><p>Google, you are quickly losing any respect I had left for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So Brin now says that it 's not important , whether or not the Chinese gov't is behind the attack ?
WTF ? Of course it 's important , it makes all the difference in the world if this is state sponsored .
And I thought Google was growing a spine , apparently not .
Move along , nothing to see here...Google , you are quickly losing any respect I had left for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So Brin now says that it's not important, whether or not the Chinese gov't is behind the attack?
WTF? Of course it's important, it makes all the difference in the world if this is state sponsored.
And I thought Google was growing a spine, apparently not.
Move along, nothing to see here...Google, you are quickly losing any respect I had left for you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135544</id>
	<title>Re:That didn't take long.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266173700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And here we thought Google had a strong backbone to stand up to china. Apparently not.</p></div><p>As much as I despise censorship... I respect the fact the cooperations cannot dictate politics in China...<br>
<br>
Google shouldn't have to stand up to the Chinese government, the Chinese people should... And probably will... My guess is they're not ready yet...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And here we thought Google had a strong backbone to stand up to china .
Apparently not.As much as I despise censorship... I respect the fact the cooperations can not dictate politics in China.. . Google should n't have to stand up to the Chinese government , the Chinese people should... And probably will... My guess is they 're not ready yet.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And here we thought Google had a strong backbone to stand up to china.
Apparently not.As much as I despise censorship... I respect the fact the cooperations cannot dictate politics in China...

Google shouldn't have to stand up to the Chinese government, the Chinese people should... And probably will... My guess is they're not ready yet...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134994</id>
	<title>Too expensive to not be evil</title>
	<author>hobbes75</author>
	<datestamp>1266168360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously not being evil is too expensive... maybe that explains the amount of evil in the world in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously not being evil is too expensive... maybe that explains the amount of evil in the world in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously not being evil is too expensive... maybe that explains the amount of evil in the world in general.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135004</id>
	<title>I am so surprised</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266168420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31142756</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed results</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266238020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how you got that. I am accessing from Japan and I couldn't get any of those, whether searching in Mandarin or in English (using the search terms you used).</p><p>At the end of the search there is the usual "some results are not shown to comply with the local rules and regulations" (in Mandarin).</p><p>So I call shenanigan on the results you obtained.</p><p>As a fan for Google, I am very disappointed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how you got that .
I am accessing from Japan and I could n't get any of those , whether searching in Mandarin or in English ( using the search terms you used ) .At the end of the search there is the usual " some results are not shown to comply with the local rules and regulations " ( in Mandarin ) .So I call shenanigan on the results you obtained.As a fan for Google , I am very disappointed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how you got that.
I am accessing from Japan and I couldn't get any of those, whether searching in Mandarin or in English (using the search terms you used).At the end of the search there is the usual "some results are not shown to comply with the local rules and regulations" (in Mandarin).So I call shenanigan on the results you obtained.As a fan for Google, I am very disappointed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31141576</id>
	<title>Re:Google Reality Check</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266265620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Google, as a publicly traded company, has only one obligation: to make a profit for shareholders. Let that soak in.</i></p><p><i>Really I'm amazed that anyone is surprised by this.</i> </p><p>You are a stupid twit.  As far as public obligations go, obeying the law - U.S. first and foremost for U.S.-based Google - is more important.  You want to let something soak in, you are a fucking retard.  Plenty of companies put principle before profit everyday.  Some due it for publicity, others do it as a long-term strategy, others really are that ethical.  That you do not understand the reasons from either a strategic or philosophical perspective only speaks to what a fucking numbskull your bitch of a mother spawned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , as a publicly traded company , has only one obligation : to make a profit for shareholders .
Let that soak in.Really I 'm amazed that anyone is surprised by this .
You are a stupid twit .
As far as public obligations go , obeying the law - U.S. first and foremost for U.S.-based Google - is more important .
You want to let something soak in , you are a fucking retard .
Plenty of companies put principle before profit everyday .
Some due it for publicity , others do it as a long-term strategy , others really are that ethical .
That you do not understand the reasons from either a strategic or philosophical perspective only speaks to what a fucking numbskull your bitch of a mother spawned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, as a publicly traded company, has only one obligation: to make a profit for shareholders.
Let that soak in.Really I'm amazed that anyone is surprised by this.
You are a stupid twit.
As far as public obligations go, obeying the law - U.S. first and foremost for U.S.-based Google - is more important.
You want to let something soak in, you are a fucking retard.
Plenty of companies put principle before profit everyday.
Some due it for publicity, others do it as a long-term strategy, others really are that ethical.
That you do not understand the reasons from either a strategic or philosophical perspective only speaks to what a fucking numbskull your bitch of a mother spawned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31138092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31137572</id>
	<title>slow news day is it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266145380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>way to show them Sergey.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>way to show them Sergey .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>way to show them Sergey.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135436</id>
	<title>Re:Bad Move</title>
	<author>JohnFen</author>
	<datestamp>1266172740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's going to make everyone question if Google can be trusted. Can they?</p></div><p>No.</p><p>This has been another episode of short answers to easy questions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's going to make everyone question if Google can be trusted .
Can they ? No.This has been another episode of short answers to easy questions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's going to make everyone question if Google can be trusted.
Can they?No.This has been another episode of short answers to easy questions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135314</id>
	<title>Re:Mixed results</title>
	<author>cavedweller96</author>
	<datestamp>1266171780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yea, It has always been like that. I tried this a year or so ago and i could find tank man pictures... with a little digging. It might also have more restrictive filtering if you have a china IP address.

come on Google... make us proud and PULL OUT</htmltext>
<tokenext>yea , It has always been like that .
I tried this a year or so ago and i could find tank man pictures... with a little digging .
It might also have more restrictive filtering if you have a china IP address .
come on Google... make us proud and PULL OUT</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea, It has always been like that.
I tried this a year or so ago and i could find tank man pictures... with a little digging.
It might also have more restrictive filtering if you have a china IP address.
come on Google... make us proud and PULL OUT</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31138334</id>
	<title>Google Search Language Preferences</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266150840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else notice the change to Search Language Preferences after the Google/China incident? It may just be a coincidence but the "Search for pages written in any language (Recommended)" option is no longer the default or an available option. The only option now is "Prefer pages written in these language(s)" with one of the languages sometimes selected and unselectable by default depending on your "Interface Language" setting or which localized version of Google you visit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else notice the change to Search Language Preferences after the Google/China incident ?
It may just be a coincidence but the " Search for pages written in any language ( Recommended ) " option is no longer the default or an available option .
The only option now is " Prefer pages written in these language ( s ) " with one of the languages sometimes selected and unselectable by default depending on your " Interface Language " setting or which localized version of Google you visit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else notice the change to Search Language Preferences after the Google/China incident?
It may just be a coincidence but the "Search for pages written in any language (Recommended)" option is no longer the default or an available option.
The only option now is "Prefer pages written in these language(s)" with one of the languages sometimes selected and unselectable by default depending on your "Interface Language" setting or which localized version of Google you visit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31140018</id>
	<title>Re: Google.cn Still Remains in China</title>
	<author>d\_54321</author>
	<datestamp>1266162600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where else would you put what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where else would you put what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where else would you put what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135002</id>
	<title>Uh</title>
	<author>mikkelm</author>
	<datestamp>1266168420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't these submissions supposed to be moderated to keep these walls of partially intelligible text off the main page?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't these submissions supposed to be moderated to keep these walls of partially intelligible text off the main page ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't these submissions supposed to be moderated to keep these walls of partially intelligible text off the main page?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31137376</id>
	<title>Lots of multinationals have this problem.</title>
	<author>ErichTheRed</author>
	<datestamp>1266144180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine if this wasn't censorship of search results that we were talking about. Instead, imagine that the Chinese government looked the other way while local officials demanded bribes for keeping the office utilities running. If you're a multinational company, those are the kind of things you need to deal with...and reconcile with a different set of ethics.</p><p>Companies need to decide whether or not they are willing to play by the local rules when they jump into an international market. Those bribes they pay may not be a good ethical choice, but they may make the company much more profitable. Since company shareholders are the only concern for most companies, they need to set aside their feelings and do what the local government says.</p><p>Personally, I think what they're doing is fine, simply because it's not our place to tell a foriegn government what to do. It's their country, and human rights abuses, censorship, Taiwan and the Dalai Lama shouldn't really matter to American citizens. That's how China chooses to keep their country in line (and growing economically at 10\%+ per year, I might add.) It seems to work well for them, and even if it didn't, we can't tell them otherwise. Doing so puts us on the same Cold War era "keeping the world safe for democracy" bandwagon that hasn't worked for us in four wars since WW2. I've long held the belief that once we solve 100\% of our social problems at home, then we can go lecture people around the world about how to behave.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine if this was n't censorship of search results that we were talking about .
Instead , imagine that the Chinese government looked the other way while local officials demanded bribes for keeping the office utilities running .
If you 're a multinational company , those are the kind of things you need to deal with...and reconcile with a different set of ethics.Companies need to decide whether or not they are willing to play by the local rules when they jump into an international market .
Those bribes they pay may not be a good ethical choice , but they may make the company much more profitable .
Since company shareholders are the only concern for most companies , they need to set aside their feelings and do what the local government says.Personally , I think what they 're doing is fine , simply because it 's not our place to tell a foriegn government what to do .
It 's their country , and human rights abuses , censorship , Taiwan and the Dalai Lama should n't really matter to American citizens .
That 's how China chooses to keep their country in line ( and growing economically at 10 \ % + per year , I might add .
) It seems to work well for them , and even if it did n't , we ca n't tell them otherwise .
Doing so puts us on the same Cold War era " keeping the world safe for democracy " bandwagon that has n't worked for us in four wars since WW2 .
I 've long held the belief that once we solve 100 \ % of our social problems at home , then we can go lecture people around the world about how to behave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine if this wasn't censorship of search results that we were talking about.
Instead, imagine that the Chinese government looked the other way while local officials demanded bribes for keeping the office utilities running.
If you're a multinational company, those are the kind of things you need to deal with...and reconcile with a different set of ethics.Companies need to decide whether or not they are willing to play by the local rules when they jump into an international market.
Those bribes they pay may not be a good ethical choice, but they may make the company much more profitable.
Since company shareholders are the only concern for most companies, they need to set aside their feelings and do what the local government says.Personally, I think what they're doing is fine, simply because it's not our place to tell a foriegn government what to do.
It's their country, and human rights abuses, censorship, Taiwan and the Dalai Lama shouldn't really matter to American citizens.
That's how China chooses to keep their country in line (and growing economically at 10\%+ per year, I might add.
) It seems to work well for them, and even if it didn't, we can't tell them otherwise.
Doing so puts us on the same Cold War era "keeping the world safe for democracy" bandwagon that hasn't worked for us in four wars since WW2.
I've long held the belief that once we solve 100\% of our social problems at home, then we can go lecture people around the world about how to behave.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136444</id>
	<title>Try "tiananmen square massacre pictures"</title>
	<author>gjt</author>
	<datestamp>1266138300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try that query then look at the results. Compare the results from the query between google.cn and google.com. It's censored. Sad.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try that query then look at the results .
Compare the results from the query between google.cn and google.com .
It 's censored .
Sad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try that query then look at the results.
Compare the results from the query between google.cn and google.com.
It's censored.
Sad.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136162</id>
	<title>So in summary...</title>
	<author>williamhb</author>
	<datestamp>1266179520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...they thought about pulling out of China, but then they decided "Don't.  Be evil."</htmltext>
<tokenext>...they thought about pulling out of China , but then they decided " Do n't .
Be evil .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they thought about pulling out of China, but then they decided "Don't.
Be evil.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134994</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31137346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31142756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31140018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31137138
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135294
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135056
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31149894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135208
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135154
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31141576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31138092
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_14_1539216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1539216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1539216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135032
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31142756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135208
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135168
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31137346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135502
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136444
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31137138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1539216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31138092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31141576
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1539216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1539216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1539216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31137546
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1539216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136302
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135436
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1539216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31134944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1539216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135056
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31140018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135294
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1539216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31136002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1539216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_14_1539216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31135178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_14_1539216.31149894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
