<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_13_1929235</id>
	<title>Brinksmanship Continues In Google-China Row Over Censorship</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1268468880000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>According to The Financial Times, <i>"Google has <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/dd69e680-2e06-11df-b85c-00144feabdc0.html">drawn up detailed plans for the closure of its Chinese search engine</a> and is now '99.9 per cent' certain to go ahead [with the closure] as talks over censorship with the Chinese authorities have reached an apparent impasse, according to a person familiar with the company&rsquo;s thinking. In a hardening of positions on both sides, the Chinese government also on Friday threw down a direct public challenge to the US search company, with a warning that it was not prepared to compromise on internet censorship to stop Google leaving."</i> "99.9 per cent" or not, both sides say they'd actually like Google to remain in China, but neither is willing to bend publicly on the question of censorship. If Google closes google.cn, as now seems likely, it could still maintain its R&amp;D office in Beijing and its sales force, who sell ads on google.com targeted into China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to The Financial Times , " Google has drawn up detailed plans for the closure of its Chinese search engine and is now '99.9 per cent ' certain to go ahead [ with the closure ] as talks over censorship with the Chinese authorities have reached an apparent impasse , according to a person familiar with the company    s thinking .
In a hardening of positions on both sides , the Chinese government also on Friday threw down a direct public challenge to the US search company , with a warning that it was not prepared to compromise on internet censorship to stop Google leaving .
" " 99.9 per cent " or not , both sides say they 'd actually like Google to remain in China , but neither is willing to bend publicly on the question of censorship .
If Google closes google.cn , as now seems likely , it could still maintain its R&amp;D office in Beijing and its sales force , who sell ads on google.com targeted into China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to The Financial Times, "Google has drawn up detailed plans for the closure of its Chinese search engine and is now '99.9 per cent' certain to go ahead [with the closure] as talks over censorship with the Chinese authorities have reached an apparent impasse, according to a person familiar with the company’s thinking.
In a hardening of positions on both sides, the Chinese government also on Friday threw down a direct public challenge to the US search company, with a warning that it was not prepared to compromise on internet censorship to stop Google leaving.
" "99.9 per cent" or not, both sides say they'd actually like Google to remain in China, but neither is willing to bend publicly on the question of censorship.
If Google closes google.cn, as now seems likely, it could still maintain its R&amp;D office in Beijing and its sales force, who sell ads on google.com targeted into China.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466644</id>
	<title>keeping your eye off the ball</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268474640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>which is to say we needn't pretend to focus on china's woes when our censorship/misinformation machine grinds away the facts, replacing them with the fluff&amp;dismay stories of our 'idols'.</p><p>never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators, where all of the realness resides.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>which is to say we need n't pretend to focus on china 's woes when our censorship/misinformation machine grinds away the facts , replacing them with the fluff&amp;dismay stories of our 'idols'.never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators , where all of the realness resides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which is to say we needn't pretend to focus on china's woes when our censorship/misinformation machine grinds away the facts, replacing them with the fluff&amp;dismay stories of our 'idols'.never a better time to consult with/trust in your creators, where all of the realness resides.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466780</id>
	<title>Re:Well, that's good to hear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268475720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have been censoring for God knows how long, and the only reason they are getting to leave is cos they realized they family jewels are being kicked around by some chinese hackers. This is the same company that may close 'google.cn' but wants to keep its engineers there - and wants android on phones sold there.</p><p>For a company that has 30\% of the market share ( the loss will be like losing Microsoft's Bing and Yahoo search engines) - there is enough innovation and a market to keep search happening. Google is not the start and end of search. Google is just the start and end of a monopoly. We may miss it here in the US for say a year or two - but soon after we'll get some cool new players.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have been censoring for God knows how long , and the only reason they are getting to leave is cos they realized they family jewels are being kicked around by some chinese hackers .
This is the same company that may close 'google.cn ' but wants to keep its engineers there - and wants android on phones sold there.For a company that has 30 \ % of the market share ( the loss will be like losing Microsoft 's Bing and Yahoo search engines ) - there is enough innovation and a market to keep search happening .
Google is not the start and end of search .
Google is just the start and end of a monopoly .
We may miss it here in the US for say a year or two - but soon after we 'll get some cool new players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have been censoring for God knows how long, and the only reason they are getting to leave is cos they realized they family jewels are being kicked around by some chinese hackers.
This is the same company that may close 'google.cn' but wants to keep its engineers there - and wants android on phones sold there.For a company that has 30\% of the market share ( the loss will be like losing Microsoft's Bing and Yahoo search engines) - there is enough innovation and a market to keep search happening.
Google is not the start and end of search.
Google is just the start and end of a monopoly.
We may miss it here in the US for say a year or two - but soon after we'll get some cool new players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31488322</id>
	<title>Re:Well, that's good to hear</title>
	<author>mzs</author>
	<datestamp>1268649840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know one of the founders of Google is named "Sergey" and I bet that has a lot to do with why they are taking this stance. I commend them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know one of the founders of Google is named " Sergey " and I bet that has a lot to do with why they are taking this stance .
I commend them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know one of the founders of Google is named "Sergey" and I bet that has a lot to do with why they are taking this stance.
I commend them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467352</id>
	<title>Re:What changed?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1268480340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It was the balance of argument at Google headquarters that changed.  Apparently Sergey Brin (who was born in the Soviet Union) has always been fairly opposed to censoring search results, while Eric Schmidt has been in favor of it.  Originally Sergey was convinced to go along with it, although reluctantly.  Once China started hacking their servers, it really seems to have bugged Sergey, and suddenly he was no longer convinced to go along with it.  That's the kind of thing that happens when you have more than one person running a company: the different people have different morals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was the balance of argument at Google headquarters that changed .
Apparently Sergey Brin ( who was born in the Soviet Union ) has always been fairly opposed to censoring search results , while Eric Schmidt has been in favor of it .
Originally Sergey was convinced to go along with it , although reluctantly .
Once China started hacking their servers , it really seems to have bugged Sergey , and suddenly he was no longer convinced to go along with it .
That 's the kind of thing that happens when you have more than one person running a company : the different people have different morals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was the balance of argument at Google headquarters that changed.
Apparently Sergey Brin (who was born in the Soviet Union) has always been fairly opposed to censoring search results, while Eric Schmidt has been in favor of it.
Originally Sergey was convinced to go along with it, although reluctantly.
Once China started hacking their servers, it really seems to have bugged Sergey, and suddenly he was no longer convinced to go along with it.
That's the kind of thing that happens when you have more than one person running a company: the different people have different morals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466724</id>
	<title>Re:Well, that's good to hear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268475240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yea, it's nice alright, that a company thinks they can operate in a country without following the laws of the country (setting aside for a minute whether the laws are "just" and "true" and all that). I wonder how that would that fly in the good ol' US of A or anywhere else for that matter?</p><p>Hey, slashdotters! Would you rather be ruled by corporations or by governments? Or is there really a diff?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yea , it 's nice alright , that a company thinks they can operate in a country without following the laws of the country ( setting aside for a minute whether the laws are " just " and " true " and all that ) .
I wonder how that would that fly in the good ol ' US of A or anywhere else for that matter ? Hey , slashdotters !
Would you rather be ruled by corporations or by governments ?
Or is there really a diff ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yea, it's nice alright, that a company thinks they can operate in a country without following the laws of the country (setting aside for a minute whether the laws are "just" and "true" and all that).
I wonder how that would that fly in the good ol' US of A or anywhere else for that matter?Hey, slashdotters!
Would you rather be ruled by corporations or by governments?
Or is there really a diff?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466480</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268473380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why should China care if Google goes or stays?  All China has to do is checkout the source code from the internal Google repository, and build their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should China care if Google goes or stays ?
All China has to do is checkout the source code from the internal Google repository , and build their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should China care if Google goes or stays?
All China has to do is checkout the source code from the internal Google repository, and build their own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466458</id>
	<title>What changed?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268473200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>What changed? They used to be fine with censoring their results. Surely a little bit of hacking wouldn't change morals that much; what else has changed?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What changed ?
They used to be fine with censoring their results .
Surely a little bit of hacking would n't change morals that much ; what else has changed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What changed?
They used to be fine with censoring their results.
Surely a little bit of hacking wouldn't change morals that much; what else has changed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466420</id>
	<title>Do It</title>
	<author>LearnToSpell</author>
	<datestamp>1268472960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is where you put your money where your mouth is, Google.  You always want chances to prove your little slogan.  Here's a great opportunity to change some people's minds who think you've grown into Everycorp.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is where you put your money where your mouth is , Google .
You always want chances to prove your little slogan .
Here 's a great opportunity to change some people 's minds who think you 've grown into Everycorp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is where you put your money where your mouth is, Google.
You always want chances to prove your little slogan.
Here's a great opportunity to change some people's minds who think you've grown into Everycorp.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466920</id>
	<title>My humnle theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268476920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What this is all about.</p><p>Recently quit a lot of independent security researchers and companies showed evidence that if you do any kind of business in China, you are BOUND to be hacked by "someone" from China. They also said that there is no defence against it (the China attacks will eventually always succeed).</p><p>Google was one of the victims of such attacks. They considered the facts. What do we get by doing business in China?</p><p>1) Small market share (the Chinese search engine Baidu dominates the search engine market in China)</p><p>2) Trojans on our internal networks.</p><p>Let's give up (because of 1 and 2). But let's do it in a way that wins us PR points. Let's do it in a way that makes us look good. Like, true fighters for freedom.</p><p>Let's tell them we're not going to obey their laws and regulations. We (Google) KNOW that they will not allow us to get away with that. But we don't care, because we've decided to leave anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What this is all about.Recently quit a lot of independent security researchers and companies showed evidence that if you do any kind of business in China , you are BOUND to be hacked by " someone " from China .
They also said that there is no defence against it ( the China attacks will eventually always succeed ) .Google was one of the victims of such attacks .
They considered the facts .
What do we get by doing business in China ? 1 ) Small market share ( the Chinese search engine Baidu dominates the search engine market in China ) 2 ) Trojans on our internal networks.Let 's give up ( because of 1 and 2 ) .
But let 's do it in a way that wins us PR points .
Let 's do it in a way that makes us look good .
Like , true fighters for freedom.Let 's tell them we 're not going to obey their laws and regulations .
We ( Google ) KNOW that they will not allow us to get away with that .
But we do n't care , because we 've decided to leave anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What this is all about.Recently quit a lot of independent security researchers and companies showed evidence that if you do any kind of business in China, you are BOUND to be hacked by "someone" from China.
They also said that there is no defence against it (the China attacks will eventually always succeed).Google was one of the victims of such attacks.
They considered the facts.
What do we get by doing business in China?1) Small market share (the Chinese search engine Baidu dominates the search engine market in China)2) Trojans on our internal networks.Let's give up (because of 1 and 2).
But let's do it in a way that wins us PR points.
Let's do it in a way that makes us look good.
Like, true fighters for freedom.Let's tell them we're not going to obey their laws and regulations.
We (Google) KNOW that they will not allow us to get away with that.
But we don't care, because we've decided to leave anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31477922</id>
	<title>Re:Why does everyone support Google in this?</title>
	<author>sixknowspring</author>
	<datestamp>1268585460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heh; I know some friends in China at BING, and it seems like their doors are wide open to take on any Google China employees who are looking for a job.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh ; I know some friends in China at BING , and it seems like their doors are wide open to take on any Google China employees who are looking for a job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh; I know some friends in China at BING, and it seems like their doors are wide open to take on any Google China employees who are looking for a job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466710</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the only one that stands to lose...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268475180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think its Google's intention to hurt China. To me it just seems they don't want to do business in a country that pushes them around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think its Google 's intention to hurt China .
To me it just seems they do n't want to do business in a country that pushes them around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think its Google's intention to hurt China.
To me it just seems they don't want to do business in a country that pushes them around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466574</id>
	<title>Google is the only one that stands to lose...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268474160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I'm fairly certain that google doing this is the right thing to do, I don't see how this hurts China. It would be trivial (read: a matter of trivia, not necessarily super easy, but it has obviously been done before, and is a known process) to have a new emerging search engine for China.
<br>
Google could stay there and stay on top because they have the best product (for now). If they leave the market, something will fill the vacuum and profit greatly from the billion.s of people in China.
<br>
I don't think China has much to lose here, I'm curious as to whether or not someone has a good convincing argument to the contrary?</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I 'm fairly certain that google doing this is the right thing to do , I do n't see how this hurts China .
It would be trivial ( read : a matter of trivia , not necessarily super easy , but it has obviously been done before , and is a known process ) to have a new emerging search engine for China .
Google could stay there and stay on top because they have the best product ( for now ) .
If they leave the market , something will fill the vacuum and profit greatly from the billion.s of people in China .
I do n't think China has much to lose here , I 'm curious as to whether or not someone has a good convincing argument to the contrary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I'm fairly certain that google doing this is the right thing to do, I don't see how this hurts China.
It would be trivial (read: a matter of trivia, not necessarily super easy, but it has obviously been done before, and is a known process) to have a new emerging search engine for China.
Google could stay there and stay on top because they have the best product (for now).
If they leave the market, something will fill the vacuum and profit greatly from the billion.s of people in China.
I don't think China has much to lose here, I'm curious as to whether or not someone has a good convincing argument to the contrary?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467374</id>
	<title>and this is called a "pull out"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268480520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Google closes google.cn, as now seems likely, it could still maintain its R&amp;D office in Beijing and its sales force, who sell ads on google.com targeted into China.</p></div><p>I don't know how one would call this strategy a "pull out". That's more "into the market" than before google.cn was established in a time when Chinese users just used google.com directly and that Google could not sell ads directly in China. Only the job of censoring is just shift from google to the Great Firewall. Neither side seems to lose anything and both sides can now claim victory. "Don't do evils, just collect money and let others do the evils" Very creative marketing move!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google closes google.cn , as now seems likely , it could still maintain its R&amp;D office in Beijing and its sales force , who sell ads on google.com targeted into China.I do n't know how one would call this strategy a " pull out " .
That 's more " into the market " than before google.cn was established in a time when Chinese users just used google.com directly and that Google could not sell ads directly in China .
Only the job of censoring is just shift from google to the Great Firewall .
Neither side seems to lose anything and both sides can now claim victory .
" Do n't do evils , just collect money and let others do the evils " Very creative marketing move !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google closes google.cn, as now seems likely, it could still maintain its R&amp;D office in Beijing and its sales force, who sell ads on google.com targeted into China.I don't know how one would call this strategy a "pull out".
That's more "into the market" than before google.cn was established in a time when Chinese users just used google.com directly and that Google could not sell ads directly in China.
Only the job of censoring is just shift from google to the Great Firewall.
Neither side seems to lose anything and both sides can now claim victory.
"Don't do evils, just collect money and let others do the evils" Very creative marketing move!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31469614</id>
	<title>Not really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268499780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bing/Yahoo will be all over. Both companies have worked with Chinese gov, such as turning over information that convicted one of the civies. Likewise, MS and Yahoo have had ZERO issues with censoring. I think that it is fair to say that MS and Yahoo will do very well there, esp. since MS is ran just like China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bing/Yahoo will be all over .
Both companies have worked with Chinese gov , such as turning over information that convicted one of the civies .
Likewise , MS and Yahoo have had ZERO issues with censoring .
I think that it is fair to say that MS and Yahoo will do very well there , esp .
since MS is ran just like China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bing/Yahoo will be all over.
Both companies have worked with Chinese gov, such as turning over information that convicted one of the civies.
Likewise, MS and Yahoo have had ZERO issues with censoring.
I think that it is fair to say that MS and Yahoo will do very well there, esp.
since MS is ran just like China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471472</id>
	<title>Re:What changed?</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1268573400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think it is fair to say Eric Schmidt is in favor of censoring. The problem is that he doesn't appear to see anything seriously wrong with it, certainly not from a moral point of view. He is, after all, the CEO of one of the most privacy puncturing businesses the world has ever seen. Where I think the issue arose is that if you are in the business of puncturing privacy, then censoring means walling off something you'd like to get your hands on, i.e., people's data as a window into what kind of advertising will make them part with their money. In that sense, he might see China's censoring as wrong for his business. The other thought in his head is that China is an untapped huge market. Naturally, as a CEO of a multinational, he'd like to be in that market. So he's stuck and Google felt like they were balanced on a knife's edge. That allowed Brin to tip the balance where before his predilections were dismissed.</p><p>Google is attempting to make a long term strategic decision, not a short term up or down vote on censorship. If turning over China to MS, which probably thinks censorship is a fine idea, means allowing MS to start a domino effect leading to Google being destroyed, then they need to be careful. MS does have the PC industry by the balls. That means Google must move the information economy off the PC if they expect to survive MS; the Ball-headed Beast of Redmond takes no prisoners unless it is to eat them alive. The China problem doesn't fall neatly into "inside the PC" or "outside the PC", ergo Google's, up to now, penchant for kicking the can down to the road until forced to choose.</p><p>If China succeeds in inflicting censorship on Google, every other country will see fit to also and there goes Google's dream of being the prime source of information on the web; it would darken whole parts of it. If that happens, then Google's income from monetizing that information is very much decreased. This is probably what Schmidt observed and what allowed the issue to rise up to level within Google where Brin could have a shot at influencing the outcome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it is fair to say Eric Schmidt is in favor of censoring .
The problem is that he does n't appear to see anything seriously wrong with it , certainly not from a moral point of view .
He is , after all , the CEO of one of the most privacy puncturing businesses the world has ever seen .
Where I think the issue arose is that if you are in the business of puncturing privacy , then censoring means walling off something you 'd like to get your hands on , i.e. , people 's data as a window into what kind of advertising will make them part with their money .
In that sense , he might see China 's censoring as wrong for his business .
The other thought in his head is that China is an untapped huge market .
Naturally , as a CEO of a multinational , he 'd like to be in that market .
So he 's stuck and Google felt like they were balanced on a knife 's edge .
That allowed Brin to tip the balance where before his predilections were dismissed.Google is attempting to make a long term strategic decision , not a short term up or down vote on censorship .
If turning over China to MS , which probably thinks censorship is a fine idea , means allowing MS to start a domino effect leading to Google being destroyed , then they need to be careful .
MS does have the PC industry by the balls .
That means Google must move the information economy off the PC if they expect to survive MS ; the Ball-headed Beast of Redmond takes no prisoners unless it is to eat them alive .
The China problem does n't fall neatly into " inside the PC " or " outside the PC " , ergo Google 's , up to now , penchant for kicking the can down to the road until forced to choose.If China succeeds in inflicting censorship on Google , every other country will see fit to also and there goes Google 's dream of being the prime source of information on the web ; it would darken whole parts of it .
If that happens , then Google 's income from monetizing that information is very much decreased .
This is probably what Schmidt observed and what allowed the issue to rise up to level within Google where Brin could have a shot at influencing the outcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it is fair to say Eric Schmidt is in favor of censoring.
The problem is that he doesn't appear to see anything seriously wrong with it, certainly not from a moral point of view.
He is, after all, the CEO of one of the most privacy puncturing businesses the world has ever seen.
Where I think the issue arose is that if you are in the business of puncturing privacy, then censoring means walling off something you'd like to get your hands on, i.e., people's data as a window into what kind of advertising will make them part with their money.
In that sense, he might see China's censoring as wrong for his business.
The other thought in his head is that China is an untapped huge market.
Naturally, as a CEO of a multinational, he'd like to be in that market.
So he's stuck and Google felt like they were balanced on a knife's edge.
That allowed Brin to tip the balance where before his predilections were dismissed.Google is attempting to make a long term strategic decision, not a short term up or down vote on censorship.
If turning over China to MS, which probably thinks censorship is a fine idea, means allowing MS to start a domino effect leading to Google being destroyed, then they need to be careful.
MS does have the PC industry by the balls.
That means Google must move the information economy off the PC if they expect to survive MS; the Ball-headed Beast of Redmond takes no prisoners unless it is to eat them alive.
The China problem doesn't fall neatly into "inside the PC" or "outside the PC", ergo Google's, up to now, penchant for kicking the can down to the road until forced to choose.If China succeeds in inflicting censorship on Google, every other country will see fit to also and there goes Google's dream of being the prime source of information on the web; it would darken whole parts of it.
If that happens, then Google's income from monetizing that information is very much decreased.
This is probably what Schmidt observed and what allowed the issue to rise up to level within Google where Brin could have a shot at influencing the outcome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467352</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466812</id>
	<title>Re:Well, that's good to hear</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1268475960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. This is about important principles. It is nice to see them recognize this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
This is about important principles .
It is nice to see them recognize this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
This is about important principles.
It is nice to see them recognize this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468938</id>
	<title>Re:Well, that's good to hear</title>
	<author>dov\_0</author>
	<datestamp>1268492760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't see that China has anything much to lose over this. Google had some pretty staunch competition anyway from Baidu, which seems to be like a combination of google, youtube and wikipedia, set for the Chinese market.</p><p>China is well within it's rights as a sovereign nation to govern it's people in the way it sees fit. We may not agree with all of it's measures, but we don't have to! Google, as a foreign company, should keep it's nose out of Chinese politics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't see that China has anything much to lose over this .
Google had some pretty staunch competition anyway from Baidu , which seems to be like a combination of google , youtube and wikipedia , set for the Chinese market.China is well within it 's rights as a sovereign nation to govern it 's people in the way it sees fit .
We may not agree with all of it 's measures , but we do n't have to !
Google , as a foreign company , should keep it 's nose out of Chinese politics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't see that China has anything much to lose over this.
Google had some pretty staunch competition anyway from Baidu, which seems to be like a combination of google, youtube and wikipedia, set for the Chinese market.China is well within it's rights as a sovereign nation to govern it's people in the way it sees fit.
We may not agree with all of it's measures, but we don't have to!
Google, as a foreign company, should keep it's nose out of Chinese politics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471584</id>
	<title>Re:What changed? here is another theory</title>
	<author>kubitus</author>
	<datestamp>1268575260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google has a backdoor for US intelligence. China does not want this - maybe unless they also have access to Google in the US.<p>
. </p><p>
Big uproar of a hack on Google makes Google stop Chinese eavesdropping on Google-US.</p><p>
Google does not block their backdoor on their services in China for US -</p><p>
consequence: either comply for a level field or leave the field.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p>
I think it is not about a few dissidents, that is what the US services want the world to think!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has a backdoor for US intelligence .
China does not want this - maybe unless they also have access to Google in the US .
. Big uproar of a hack on Google makes Google stop Chinese eavesdropping on Google-US .
Google does not block their backdoor on their services in China for US - consequence : either comply for a level field or leave the field .
. I think it is not about a few dissidents , that is what the US services want the world to think !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has a backdoor for US intelligence.
China does not want this - maybe unless they also have access to Google in the US.
. 
Big uproar of a hack on Google makes Google stop Chinese eavesdropping on Google-US.
Google does not block their backdoor on their services in China for US -
consequence: either comply for a level field or leave the field.
.
I think it is not about a few dissidents, that is what the US services want the world to think!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468018</id>
	<title>It's not Google's job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268485080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>to tell the Chinese government how to do things, no matter how wrong they think those ideas are, or how Google justifies those beliefs.</p><p>So many people from the US seem to forget to see things from China's POV.  As far as they are concerned, this is a method of keeping society's beliefs safe and consistent.  Doing things to internet access is only a means to that goal.  And don't forget that not everyone in the world has a Manifest Destiny/Rugged Individualism/Self-Interest Maximizing mindset.  East Asian cultures value the stability of society the most, and many people from Confucian-based cultures would not disagree with the statement "Society &gt; Individual".</p><p>The point being, the average US guy has screwed up beliefs concerning China's motivations behind Internet control.  In principle, China is not against freedom.  But China is for social stability.  Telling China to stop filtering the Internet is tantamount to disagreeing with the aim of social stability, compared to US people's belief that internet filtering can only be an attack on people's freedom/individuality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to tell the Chinese government how to do things , no matter how wrong they think those ideas are , or how Google justifies those beliefs.So many people from the US seem to forget to see things from China 's POV .
As far as they are concerned , this is a method of keeping society 's beliefs safe and consistent .
Doing things to internet access is only a means to that goal .
And do n't forget that not everyone in the world has a Manifest Destiny/Rugged Individualism/Self-Interest Maximizing mindset .
East Asian cultures value the stability of society the most , and many people from Confucian-based cultures would not disagree with the statement " Society &gt; Individual " .The point being , the average US guy has screwed up beliefs concerning China 's motivations behind Internet control .
In principle , China is not against freedom .
But China is for social stability .
Telling China to stop filtering the Internet is tantamount to disagreeing with the aim of social stability , compared to US people 's belief that internet filtering can only be an attack on people 's freedom/individuality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to tell the Chinese government how to do things, no matter how wrong they think those ideas are, or how Google justifies those beliefs.So many people from the US seem to forget to see things from China's POV.
As far as they are concerned, this is a method of keeping society's beliefs safe and consistent.
Doing things to internet access is only a means to that goal.
And don't forget that not everyone in the world has a Manifest Destiny/Rugged Individualism/Self-Interest Maximizing mindset.
East Asian cultures value the stability of society the most, and many people from Confucian-based cultures would not disagree with the statement "Society &gt; Individual".The point being, the average US guy has screwed up beliefs concerning China's motivations behind Internet control.
In principle, China is not against freedom.
But China is for social stability.
Telling China to stop filtering the Internet is tantamount to disagreeing with the aim of social stability, compared to US people's belief that internet filtering can only be an attack on people's freedom/individuality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468890</id>
	<title>Re:It's not Google's job</title>
	<author>genner</author>
	<datestamp>1268492400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>to tell the Chinese government how to do things, no matter how wrong they think those ideas are, or how Google justifies those beliefs.</p><p>So many people from the US seem to forget to see things from China's POV.  As far as they are concerned, this is a method of keeping society's beliefs safe and consistent.  Doing things to internet access is only a means to that goal.  And don't forget that not everyone in the world has a Manifest Destiny/Rugged Individualism/Self-Interest Maximizing mindset.  East Asian cultures value the stability of society the most, and many people from Confucian-based cultures would not disagree with the statement "Society &gt; Individual".</p><p>The point being, the average US guy has screwed up beliefs concerning China's motivations behind Internet control.  In principle, China is not against freedom.  But China is for social stability.  Telling China to stop filtering the Internet is tantamount to disagreeing with the aim of social stability, compared to US people's belief that internet filtering can only be an attack on people's freedom/individuality.</p></div><p>to tell Google how to do things, no matter how wrong they think those ideas are, or how China justifies those beliefs.</p><p>So many people from China seem to forget to see things from Google's POV.  As far as they are concerned, this is a method of keeping society's beliefs safe and consistent.  Not doing things to internet access is only a means to that goal.  And don't forget that not everyone in the world has a Collectivistic Maximizing mindset.  American cultures value the freedom of individuals the most, and many people from Christian-based cultures would not disagree with the statement "An injury to one is an injury to all".</p><p>The point being, the average Chinese guy has screwed up beliefs concerning Google's motivations behind Internet control.  In principle, Google is not against a stable society.  But Google is for freedom.  Telling Google to keep filtering the Internet is tantamount to disagreeing with the aim of freedom, compared to the Chinese people's belief that internet filtering is the only way to social stability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>to tell the Chinese government how to do things , no matter how wrong they think those ideas are , or how Google justifies those beliefs.So many people from the US seem to forget to see things from China 's POV .
As far as they are concerned , this is a method of keeping society 's beliefs safe and consistent .
Doing things to internet access is only a means to that goal .
And do n't forget that not everyone in the world has a Manifest Destiny/Rugged Individualism/Self-Interest Maximizing mindset .
East Asian cultures value the stability of society the most , and many people from Confucian-based cultures would not disagree with the statement " Society &gt; Individual " .The point being , the average US guy has screwed up beliefs concerning China 's motivations behind Internet control .
In principle , China is not against freedom .
But China is for social stability .
Telling China to stop filtering the Internet is tantamount to disagreeing with the aim of social stability , compared to US people 's belief that internet filtering can only be an attack on people 's freedom/individuality.to tell Google how to do things , no matter how wrong they think those ideas are , or how China justifies those beliefs.So many people from China seem to forget to see things from Google 's POV .
As far as they are concerned , this is a method of keeping society 's beliefs safe and consistent .
Not doing things to internet access is only a means to that goal .
And do n't forget that not everyone in the world has a Collectivistic Maximizing mindset .
American cultures value the freedom of individuals the most , and many people from Christian-based cultures would not disagree with the statement " An injury to one is an injury to all " .The point being , the average Chinese guy has screwed up beliefs concerning Google 's motivations behind Internet control .
In principle , Google is not against a stable society .
But Google is for freedom .
Telling Google to keep filtering the Internet is tantamount to disagreeing with the aim of freedom , compared to the Chinese people 's belief that internet filtering is the only way to social stability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to tell the Chinese government how to do things, no matter how wrong they think those ideas are, or how Google justifies those beliefs.So many people from the US seem to forget to see things from China's POV.
As far as they are concerned, this is a method of keeping society's beliefs safe and consistent.
Doing things to internet access is only a means to that goal.
And don't forget that not everyone in the world has a Manifest Destiny/Rugged Individualism/Self-Interest Maximizing mindset.
East Asian cultures value the stability of society the most, and many people from Confucian-based cultures would not disagree with the statement "Society &gt; Individual".The point being, the average US guy has screwed up beliefs concerning China's motivations behind Internet control.
In principle, China is not against freedom.
But China is for social stability.
Telling China to stop filtering the Internet is tantamount to disagreeing with the aim of social stability, compared to US people's belief that internet filtering can only be an attack on people's freedom/individuality.to tell Google how to do things, no matter how wrong they think those ideas are, or how China justifies those beliefs.So many people from China seem to forget to see things from Google's POV.
As far as they are concerned, this is a method of keeping society's beliefs safe and consistent.
Not doing things to internet access is only a means to that goal.
And don't forget that not everyone in the world has a Collectivistic Maximizing mindset.
American cultures value the freedom of individuals the most, and many people from Christian-based cultures would not disagree with the statement "An injury to one is an injury to all".The point being, the average Chinese guy has screwed up beliefs concerning Google's motivations behind Internet control.
In principle, Google is not against a stable society.
But Google is for freedom.
Telling Google to keep filtering the Internet is tantamount to disagreeing with the aim of freedom, compared to the Chinese people's belief that internet filtering is the only way to social stability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467312</id>
	<title>are you  "99.9 per cent" sure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268480040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>proofread motherfuckers.</p><p>turns out my CAPTCHA is "amateurs," how apt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>proofread motherfuckers.turns out my CAPTCHA is " amateurs , " how apt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>proofread motherfuckers.turns out my CAPTCHA is "amateurs," how apt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31469500</id>
	<title>Re:Google the political player</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268498460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's funny, I don't recall Microsoft ever having this kind of pull</p></div><p>Those who pull the strings usually don't want to be seen doing that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny , I do n't recall Microsoft ever having this kind of pullThose who pull the strings usually do n't want to be seen doing that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny, I don't recall Microsoft ever having this kind of pullThose who pull the strings usually don't want to be seen doing that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466600</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466820</id>
	<title>Why does everyone support Google in this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268476020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they can't get the government to stop censorship, what is the point of Google pulling out of China?  It looks like the result of Google's actions will be:
<br>- there is less search engine choice in China
<br>- (presumably) some people from Google China will lose their jobs
<br> <br>
It would be completely different if Google was so important that they could force the Chinese government to do what they want.  But they are not even the biggest search engine in China.  Why is everyone acting like Google is doing the right thing, when it seems like what they are doing will be bad for everyone involved (the employees, users, and shareholders)?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they ca n't get the government to stop censorship , what is the point of Google pulling out of China ?
It looks like the result of Google 's actions will be : - there is less search engine choice in China - ( presumably ) some people from Google China will lose their jobs It would be completely different if Google was so important that they could force the Chinese government to do what they want .
But they are not even the biggest search engine in China .
Why is everyone acting like Google is doing the right thing , when it seems like what they are doing will be bad for everyone involved ( the employees , users , and shareholders ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they can't get the government to stop censorship, what is the point of Google pulling out of China?
It looks like the result of Google's actions will be:
- there is less search engine choice in China
- (presumably) some people from Google China will lose their jobs
 
It would be completely different if Google was so important that they could force the Chinese government to do what they want.
But they are not even the biggest search engine in China.
Why is everyone acting like Google is doing the right thing, when it seems like what they are doing will be bad for everyone involved (the employees, users, and shareholders)?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467484</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1268481300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is Google actually delivering on their "Don't be evil" thing?</p></div><p>It's Sergei, mostly. </p><p>Can't find the reference right now, but there's a story out there in which it's posited that his childhood experience in the Soviet Union left him with an aversion to coercive state power. He allowed himself to be talked into going into China by Schmidt and Page, but when it became clear that China was using them to target human rights activists, Sergei baulked.</p><p>Having agreed at the outset to put limits on what they would put up with from China, Larry and Eric had no choice but to go along when Sergei insisted that they retaliate.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Google actually delivering on their " Do n't be evil " thing ? It 's Sergei , mostly .
Ca n't find the reference right now , but there 's a story out there in which it 's posited that his childhood experience in the Soviet Union left him with an aversion to coercive state power .
He allowed himself to be talked into going into China by Schmidt and Page , but when it became clear that China was using them to target human rights activists , Sergei baulked.Having agreed at the outset to put limits on what they would put up with from China , Larry and Eric had no choice but to go along when Sergei insisted that they retaliate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Google actually delivering on their "Don't be evil" thing?It's Sergei, mostly.
Can't find the reference right now, but there's a story out there in which it's posited that his childhood experience in the Soviet Union left him with an aversion to coercive state power.
He allowed himself to be talked into going into China by Schmidt and Page, but when it became clear that China was using them to target human rights activists, Sergei baulked.Having agreed at the outset to put limits on what they would put up with from China, Larry and Eric had no choice but to go along when Sergei insisted that they retaliate.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466380</id>
	<title>Brinkmanship not Brinksmanship</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268472720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>/grammar nazi</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>/grammar nazi</tokentext>
<sentencetext>/grammar nazi</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466534</id>
	<title>Re:Well, that's good to hear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268473800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a recent slashdot story on this. The common person in China probably will not see too much of a difference with Google gone, since they do have Baidu, but scientists and researchers will since they rely heavily on Google Scholar, which China has yet to reproduce their own version of.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a recent slashdot story on this .
The common person in China probably will not see too much of a difference with Google gone , since they do have Baidu , but scientists and researchers will since they rely heavily on Google Scholar , which China has yet to reproduce their own version of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a recent slashdot story on this.
The common person in China probably will not see too much of a difference with Google gone, since they do have Baidu, but scientists and researchers will since they rely heavily on Google Scholar, which China has yet to reproduce their own version of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467902</id>
	<title>Google may lose market share in china</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1268484360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>by leaving, but they will earn immense PR and public support all around the world that will have far reaching consequences. economically, technically, and due to recent trends, politically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>by leaving , but they will earn immense PR and public support all around the world that will have far reaching consequences .
economically , technically , and due to recent trends , politically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by leaving, but they will earn immense PR and public support all around the world that will have far reaching consequences.
economically, technically, and due to recent trends, politically.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467116</id>
	<title>Re:What changed?</title>
	<author>pizzap</author>
	<datestamp>1268478300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, I don't think they ever liked it. From the start Google wasn't offering all its products and had a differianted position on the state censoring and human rights violations. They werren't offering blogs, for example, since they didn't want to cooperate with the chinese police on that issue. This was stated publicly by Google.

Competing with a state owned search gigant, while the same state steals your property, can't be much fun for Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I do n't think they ever liked it .
From the start Google was n't offering all its products and had a differianted position on the state censoring and human rights violations .
They werre n't offering blogs , for example , since they did n't want to cooperate with the chinese police on that issue .
This was stated publicly by Google .
Competing with a state owned search gigant , while the same state steals your property , ca n't be much fun for Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I don't think they ever liked it.
From the start Google wasn't offering all its products and had a differianted position on the state censoring and human rights violations.
They werren't offering blogs, for example, since they didn't want to cooperate with the chinese police on that issue.
This was stated publicly by Google.
Competing with a state owned search gigant, while the same state steals your property, can't be much fun for Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31482252</id>
	<title>Re:My humnle theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268669520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you provide some references for the research mentioned please?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you provide some references for the research mentioned please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you provide some references for the research mentioned please?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466504</id>
	<title>Re:Brinkmanship not Brinksmanship</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1268473560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both are correct, moron.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both are correct , moron .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both are correct, moron.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466682</id>
	<title>Brinksmanship?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268475000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you say that?  It looks like a contract dispute to me, and if they can't come to terms, business will cease.</p><p>Talking about keeping open the marketing and development office shows that.  If it were brinksmanship, they'd just pull out.</p><p>The shareholders are not going to accept Google forgoing huge profits for ethical reasons.  That's not how corporate governance works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you say that ?
It looks like a contract dispute to me , and if they ca n't come to terms , business will cease.Talking about keeping open the marketing and development office shows that .
If it were brinksmanship , they 'd just pull out.The shareholders are not going to accept Google forgoing huge profits for ethical reasons .
That 's not how corporate governance works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you say that?
It looks like a contract dispute to me, and if they can't come to terms, business will cease.Talking about keeping open the marketing and development office shows that.
If it were brinksmanship, they'd just pull out.The shareholders are not going to accept Google forgoing huge profits for ethical reasons.
That's not how corporate governance works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466560</id>
	<title>Giants</title>
	<author>saadmubeen</author>
	<datestamp>1268473980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both are giants in there respective positions...China is now leading the world's economy whereas Google holds its position as the leader of Internet Business....It will be great if these two sort out there matters peacefully...

Regards
<a href="http://www.saadstore.com/" title="saadstore.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.saadstore.com/</a> [saadstore.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both are giants in there respective positions...China is now leading the world 's economy whereas Google holds its position as the leader of Internet Business....It will be great if these two sort out there matters peacefully.. . Regards http : //www.saadstore.com/ [ saadstore.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both are giants in there respective positions...China is now leading the world's economy whereas Google holds its position as the leader of Internet Business....It will be great if these two sort out there matters peacefully...

Regards
http://www.saadstore.com/ [saadstore.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467182</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the only one that stands to lose...</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1268478900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>China might lose because this discourages other businesses to operate in China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China might lose because this discourages other businesses to operate in China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China might lose because this discourages other businesses to operate in China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466396</id>
	<title>Wow...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268472780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is Google actually delivering on their "Don't be evil" thing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is Google actually delivering on their " Do n't be evil " thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is Google actually delivering on their "Don't be evil" thing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31470968</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the only one that stands to lose...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268563440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, it is much more profitable to do business in a country where you can buy off politicians to make laws to protect your revenue stream...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , it is much more profitable to do business in a country where you can buy off politicians to make laws to protect your revenue stream.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, it is much more profitable to do business in a country where you can buy off politicians to make laws to protect your revenue stream...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466972</id>
	<title>Chinese traffic is worthless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268477220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously.. What can you sell with clicks from China?<br>Think of all the money that Google can save if they actually blocked all of China from using their services?</p><p>Leaving China will be a good thing for Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously.. What can you sell with clicks from China ? Think of all the money that Google can save if they actually blocked all of China from using their services ? Leaving China will be a good thing for Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.. What can you sell with clicks from China?Think of all the money that Google can save if they actually blocked all of China from using their services?Leaving China will be a good thing for Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466912</id>
	<title>Take it to the people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268476860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could Google not go on the offensive by listing censored results and providing a link that leads not to the censored content, but to a page explaining that the government is afraid of the content?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could Google not go on the offensive by listing censored results and providing a link that leads not to the censored content , but to a page explaining that the government is afraid of the content ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could Google not go on the offensive by listing censored results and providing a link that leads not to the censored content, but to a page explaining that the government is afraid of the content?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31469802</id>
	<title>Re:It's not Google's job.</title>
	<author>doug20r</author>
	<datestamp>1268501940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well said. If Google are allowed to succeed then please understand that you will all live in fear.  You may awaken one morning to have your Google services cut off and if Google are as successful as they aspire to be then you will have few alternatives.  If you appeal to Google they will investigate in secret by their own standards and not those of society, they will likely not even contact you or give you a chance to defend yourself, and you will have little chance to challenge Google court.  If you complain to your Government they will not be able to do anything - they may remind you that Google whipped China in 2010 and there is little they can do!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said .
If Google are allowed to succeed then please understand that you will all live in fear .
You may awaken one morning to have your Google services cut off and if Google are as successful as they aspire to be then you will have few alternatives .
If you appeal to Google they will investigate in secret by their own standards and not those of society , they will likely not even contact you or give you a chance to defend yourself , and you will have little chance to challenge Google court .
If you complain to your Government they will not be able to do anything - they may remind you that Google whipped China in 2010 and there is little they can do !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.
If Google are allowed to succeed then please understand that you will all live in fear.
You may awaken one morning to have your Google services cut off and if Google are as successful as they aspire to be then you will have few alternatives.
If you appeal to Google they will investigate in secret by their own standards and not those of society, they will likely not even contact you or give you a chance to defend yourself, and you will have little chance to challenge Google court.
If you complain to your Government they will not be able to do anything - they may remind you that Google whipped China in 2010 and there is little they can do!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31475006</id>
	<title>Re:Why does everyone support Google in this?</title>
	<author>Capena</author>
	<datestamp>1268563680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't support censorship, but if Google leaves <i>China's internet will still be censored</i>, only by Baidu instead of Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't support censorship , but if Google leaves China 's internet will still be censored , only by Baidu instead of Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't support censorship, but if Google leaves China's internet will still be censored, only by Baidu instead of Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466980</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466926</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the only one that stands to lose...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268476980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is not on top in China and never has been.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is not on top in China and never has been .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is not on top in China and never has been.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466902</id>
	<title>Who is Google fooling</title>
	<author>camcorder</author>
	<datestamp>1268476800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google can fool nobody. They lost in China. Baidu is a clear winner. And this hack thing is just to blame for them for their failure. If they were such a big network company they could have easily eliminated such an attack, but they couldn't and now they just don't want to be seen "evil" and blame Chinese government.<br> <br>
They for sure will not leave the China for their operations. It's a huge market. They will just try to hide their incapability but be prepared for better technology for China and they know as much as I do that if they leave the China they will eventually lose market in whole world. If not why it took so long for them close their operations in China? It's just a basic block on Chinese ips which they know what they are.<br> <br>
So mod me down Google fanbois (oh it should hard to find on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.) but that's the reality.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google can fool nobody .
They lost in China .
Baidu is a clear winner .
And this hack thing is just to blame for them for their failure .
If they were such a big network company they could have easily eliminated such an attack , but they could n't and now they just do n't want to be seen " evil " and blame Chinese government .
They for sure will not leave the China for their operations .
It 's a huge market .
They will just try to hide their incapability but be prepared for better technology for China and they know as much as I do that if they leave the China they will eventually lose market in whole world .
If not why it took so long for them close their operations in China ?
It 's just a basic block on Chinese ips which they know what they are .
So mod me down Google fanbois ( oh it should hard to find on / .
) but that 's the reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google can fool nobody.
They lost in China.
Baidu is a clear winner.
And this hack thing is just to blame for them for their failure.
If they were such a big network company they could have easily eliminated such an attack, but they couldn't and now they just don't want to be seen "evil" and blame Chinese government.
They for sure will not leave the China for their operations.
It's a huge market.
They will just try to hide their incapability but be prepared for better technology for China and they know as much as I do that if they leave the China they will eventually lose market in whole world.
If not why it took so long for them close their operations in China?
It's just a basic block on Chinese ips which they know what they are.
So mod me down Google fanbois (oh it should hard to find on /.
) but that's the reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466592</id>
	<title>Bad summary, Google isn't pulling out of China</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268474280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the article:</p><p>"It&rsquo;s very important to know we are not pulling out of China"</p><p>At most, it appears they would stop offering search services.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the article : " It    s very important to know we are not pulling out of China " At most , it appears they would stop offering search services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the article:"It’s very important to know we are not pulling out of China"At most, it appears they would stop offering search services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467142</id>
	<title>Glad someone finally grew a pair</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1268478540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like google or not, it's good to see a business stand up to the Chinese government.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like google or not , it 's good to see a business stand up to the Chinese government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like google or not, it's good to see a business stand up to the Chinese government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466600</id>
	<title>Google the political player</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268474280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny, I don't recall Microsoft ever having this kind of pull, to be able to influence the market on a political level. But everyone uses Windows so I guess they're in for the profit all the way. Google apparently is a little different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny , I do n't recall Microsoft ever having this kind of pull , to be able to influence the market on a political level .
But everyone uses Windows so I guess they 're in for the profit all the way .
Google apparently is a little different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny, I don't recall Microsoft ever having this kind of pull, to be able to influence the market on a political level.
But everyone uses Windows so I guess they're in for the profit all the way.
Google apparently is a little different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471750</id>
	<title>Re:Well, that's good to hear</title>
	<author>plasticsquirrel</author>
	<datestamp>1268577060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, Google is by far more popular than Baidu amongst younger people here. I asked a class of my Chinese students if they use Baidu, and they all laughed and told me that they love Google. They were worried about Google leaving, which prompted the question in the first place. Just the other day, a fellow teacher said, "Thank God for Google," because they depend on the site so much.<br> <br>Baidu is still more popular overall, but much of this is due to the large number of people overall who use the Internet. For example, most elderly people surf the Web, and are very adept at learning new technology. When I first arrived in China, a long-time American expat living in Beijing remarked to me that the Chinese are "knowledge people." After seeing people packed into the bookstores here, I'm inclined to agree. They really are pretty nerdy people overall, despite the popular misconception on Slashdot that they are the unwashed ignorant masses.<br> <br>However, I've found that there is a huge gap of understanding between the cultures of China and the West. Neither side really understands the other. The misconceptions about the West are about as pronounced as western misconceptions about China.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , Google is by far more popular than Baidu amongst younger people here .
I asked a class of my Chinese students if they use Baidu , and they all laughed and told me that they love Google .
They were worried about Google leaving , which prompted the question in the first place .
Just the other day , a fellow teacher said , " Thank God for Google , " because they depend on the site so much .
Baidu is still more popular overall , but much of this is due to the large number of people overall who use the Internet .
For example , most elderly people surf the Web , and are very adept at learning new technology .
When I first arrived in China , a long-time American expat living in Beijing remarked to me that the Chinese are " knowledge people .
" After seeing people packed into the bookstores here , I 'm inclined to agree .
They really are pretty nerdy people overall , despite the popular misconception on Slashdot that they are the unwashed ignorant masses .
However , I 've found that there is a huge gap of understanding between the cultures of China and the West .
Neither side really understands the other .
The misconceptions about the West are about as pronounced as western misconceptions about China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, Google is by far more popular than Baidu amongst younger people here.
I asked a class of my Chinese students if they use Baidu, and they all laughed and told me that they love Google.
They were worried about Google leaving, which prompted the question in the first place.
Just the other day, a fellow teacher said, "Thank God for Google," because they depend on the site so much.
Baidu is still more popular overall, but much of this is due to the large number of people overall who use the Internet.
For example, most elderly people surf the Web, and are very adept at learning new technology.
When I first arrived in China, a long-time American expat living in Beijing remarked to me that the Chinese are "knowledge people.
" After seeing people packed into the bookstores here, I'm inclined to agree.
They really are pretty nerdy people overall, despite the popular misconception on Slashdot that they are the unwashed ignorant masses.
However, I've found that there is a huge gap of understanding between the cultures of China and the West.
Neither side really understands the other.
The misconceptions about the West are about as pronounced as western misconceptions about China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467156</id>
	<title>Re:Bad summary, Google isn't pulling out of China</title>
	<author>LockeOnLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1268478660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The search services are the part that pertains to censorship. Google isn't severing business ties, they are refusing to facilitate censorship.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The search services are the part that pertains to censorship .
Google is n't severing business ties , they are refusing to facilitate censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The search services are the part that pertains to censorship.
Google isn't severing business ties, they are refusing to facilitate censorship.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466818</id>
	<title>What fool would sell ads in China?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268476020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Consider the arrest of Rio Tinto's Chinese management and it's clear that any senior employee remaining in China would become hostage to Google's continued censorship of search results.<br>-- Newall</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Consider the arrest of Rio Tinto 's Chinese management and it 's clear that any senior employee remaining in China would become hostage to Google 's continued censorship of search results.-- Newall</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Consider the arrest of Rio Tinto's Chinese management and it's clear that any senior employee remaining in China would become hostage to Google's continued censorship of search results.-- Newall</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466980</id>
	<title>Re:Why does everyone support Google in this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268477280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my country, it is completely illegal to search for the word "Capena" or the phrase "government corruption".</p><p>Are you ok with that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my country , it is completely illegal to search for the word " Capena " or the phrase " government corruption " .Are you ok with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my country, it is completely illegal to search for the word "Capena" or the phrase "government corruption".Are you ok with that?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471080</id>
	<title>But the converse is?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268565840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK.  Say that they leave.  Will the attacks stop?  You still have valuable assets, perhaps at new locations..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK. Say that they leave .
Will the attacks stop ?
You still have valuable assets , perhaps at new locations. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK.  Say that they leave.
Will the attacks stop?
You still have valuable assets, perhaps at new locations..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467598</id>
	<title>Re:Google is the only one that stands to lose...</title>
	<author>TorKlingberg</author>
	<datestamp>1268481960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China loses because Google is the best search engine, especially for scholarly papers, books and such. Sure they have Baidu, but it is basically the AOL of China; very popular with those who don't know better. University students, engineers, and smart people in general prefer Google, especially when searching in English. I suspect Google leaving China will lead to more people bypassing the filters to get to Google.</p><p>Also, Google has been a symbolically important, and may influence other western companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China loses because Google is the best search engine , especially for scholarly papers , books and such .
Sure they have Baidu , but it is basically the AOL of China ; very popular with those who do n't know better .
University students , engineers , and smart people in general prefer Google , especially when searching in English .
I suspect Google leaving China will lead to more people bypassing the filters to get to Google.Also , Google has been a symbolically important , and may influence other western companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China loses because Google is the best search engine, especially for scholarly papers, books and such.
Sure they have Baidu, but it is basically the AOL of China; very popular with those who don't know better.
University students, engineers, and smart people in general prefer Google, especially when searching in English.
I suspect Google leaving China will lead to more people bypassing the filters to get to Google.Also, Google has been a symbolically important, and may influence other western companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31470544</id>
	<title>Re:Why does everyone support Google in this?</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1268599380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is perfectly possible for the morally correct choice to be against everyone's short term interests. We approve of Google's actions because Google is sticking to their principles and not supporting an evil regime for profit like most other megacorps are inclined to do. In the long term, if more companies follow Google's lead, it will teach the Chinese government that the civilized world will not support their policies and they will change their ways, even if out of self-interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is perfectly possible for the morally correct choice to be against everyone 's short term interests .
We approve of Google 's actions because Google is sticking to their principles and not supporting an evil regime for profit like most other megacorps are inclined to do .
In the long term , if more companies follow Google 's lead , it will teach the Chinese government that the civilized world will not support their policies and they will change their ways , even if out of self-interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is perfectly possible for the morally correct choice to be against everyone's short term interests.
We approve of Google's actions because Google is sticking to their principles and not supporting an evil regime for profit like most other megacorps are inclined to do.
In the long term, if more companies follow Google's lead, it will teach the Chinese government that the civilized world will not support their policies and they will change their ways, even if out of self-interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31469028</id>
	<title>Re:Well, that's good to hear</title>
	<author>vampire\_baozi</author>
	<datestamp>1268493720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't a problem.  They are closing down the localized version of Google.cn only.  Unless the Powers That Be decide to completely block access to Google.com (individual content wouldn't be blocked unless it was "objectionable", and most content on Google Scholar is decidedly apolitical), Chinese scholars can just use the English version.  Many of them have decent English, or have access to grad students with decent English.  So again, no big loss unless they somehow lose access to the English Google scholar as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't a problem .
They are closing down the localized version of Google.cn only .
Unless the Powers That Be decide to completely block access to Google.com ( individual content would n't be blocked unless it was " objectionable " , and most content on Google Scholar is decidedly apolitical ) , Chinese scholars can just use the English version .
Many of them have decent English , or have access to grad students with decent English .
So again , no big loss unless they somehow lose access to the English Google scholar as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't a problem.
They are closing down the localized version of Google.cn only.
Unless the Powers That Be decide to completely block access to Google.com (individual content wouldn't be blocked unless it was "objectionable", and most content on Google Scholar is decidedly apolitical), Chinese scholars can just use the English version.
Many of them have decent English, or have access to grad students with decent English.
So again, no big loss unless they somehow lose access to the English Google scholar as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31474872</id>
	<title>Re:Wow...</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1268562900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How long though until some major pension fund or investment house files a lawsuit citing that by pulling out of the largest potential market in the 21st century is a fiduciary breach of responsibility to make money for the shareholder?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How long though until some major pension fund or investment house files a lawsuit citing that by pulling out of the largest potential market in the 21st century is a fiduciary breach of responsibility to make money for the shareholder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long though until some major pension fund or investment house files a lawsuit citing that by pulling out of the largest potential market in the 21st century is a fiduciary breach of responsibility to make money for the shareholder?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467484</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468372</id>
	<title>Now Australia Please</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1268487960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Down here we need a little help.  The issue is just not really even impinging on public consciousness.  I hope Google takes this stand elsewhere and gives some other countries who are warming to the idea of total control over information flow in their countries something to think about.    (Yes, I know it won't happen).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Down here we need a little help .
The issue is just not really even impinging on public consciousness .
I hope Google takes this stand elsewhere and gives some other countries who are warming to the idea of total control over information flow in their countries something to think about .
( Yes , I know it wo n't happen ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Down here we need a little help.
The issue is just not really even impinging on public consciousness.
I hope Google takes this stand elsewhere and gives some other countries who are warming to the idea of total control over information flow in their countries something to think about.
(Yes, I know it won't happen).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471074</id>
	<title>Re:My humnle theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268565720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Small market share"? There are ~300 million internet users in China. Google has about a third of the search market. 100 million users is not small by any measure.</p><p>In five years' time, a third of the China search market will be bigger than the whole US market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Small market share " ?
There are ~ 300 million internet users in China .
Google has about a third of the search market .
100 million users is not small by any measure.In five years ' time , a third of the China search market will be bigger than the whole US market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Small market share"?
There are ~300 million internet users in China.
Google has about a third of the search market.
100 million users is not small by any measure.In five years' time, a third of the China search market will be bigger than the whole US market.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466920</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466802</id>
	<title>Google played badly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268475900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should not have publicized charges against the Chinese government when they had no actual proof of their involvement. By doing so, it makes Google look like they're taking advantage of a situation in order to attempt extralegal government reform. If that play failed, they had the choice of either kowtowing in apology or going home. Neither really does much for their profile. They had no contingency and now they've lost both the opportunity to be a force of reform in China and their stake in that billion-plus market. In contrast, the Chinese government walks away from this almost entirely unharmed. Their censorship policies are already known so they lose nothing in that regard. They were only asking that the company obey the laws that every other company must obey. And their argument need only be that, surely, Google is not suggesting that it is above the law?</p><p>Google went public too early, before they had the means to prove their case and without thinking about the strength of their position. They foolishly thought that the incident itself and an accompanying accusation would be enough for a foreign company to topple government policy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should not have publicized charges against the Chinese government when they had no actual proof of their involvement .
By doing so , it makes Google look like they 're taking advantage of a situation in order to attempt extralegal government reform .
If that play failed , they had the choice of either kowtowing in apology or going home .
Neither really does much for their profile .
They had no contingency and now they 've lost both the opportunity to be a force of reform in China and their stake in that billion-plus market .
In contrast , the Chinese government walks away from this almost entirely unharmed .
Their censorship policies are already known so they lose nothing in that regard .
They were only asking that the company obey the laws that every other company must obey .
And their argument need only be that , surely , Google is not suggesting that it is above the law ? Google went public too early , before they had the means to prove their case and without thinking about the strength of their position .
They foolishly thought that the incident itself and an accompanying accusation would be enough for a foreign company to topple government policy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should not have publicized charges against the Chinese government when they had no actual proof of their involvement.
By doing so, it makes Google look like they're taking advantage of a situation in order to attempt extralegal government reform.
If that play failed, they had the choice of either kowtowing in apology or going home.
Neither really does much for their profile.
They had no contingency and now they've lost both the opportunity to be a force of reform in China and their stake in that billion-plus market.
In contrast, the Chinese government walks away from this almost entirely unharmed.
Their censorship policies are already known so they lose nothing in that regard.
They were only asking that the company obey the laws that every other company must obey.
And their argument need only be that, surely, Google is not suggesting that it is above the law?Google went public too early, before they had the means to prove their case and without thinking about the strength of their position.
They foolishly thought that the incident itself and an accompanying accusation would be enough for a foreign company to topple government policy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467108</id>
	<title>Re:Well, that's good to hear</title>
	<author>Pinhedd</author>
	<datestamp>1268478240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you mean they haven't copied one yet</htmltext>
<tokenext>you mean they have n't copied one yet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you mean they haven't copied one yet</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31470662</id>
	<title>Re:It's not Google's job</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268558760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not everyone in the world has a Manifest Destiny/Rugged Individualism/Self-Interest Maximizing mindset. And who are you to state that nobody in China does ? And should you be allowed to force your POV on those people ?  You're just twisting your words to hide the fact that you're supporting censorship in general. Oh yeah, "social stability", more like "We suck and we still want to be in power".</p><p>It's also interesting that you brought up Confucianism because I grew up in such a family. And trust me when I say it's the same system that marginalizes the role of women (support the father, support the husband, support the son), hinders technological/scientific progress (hey let's have a bunch of philosophers and novelists take care of the economy ), supports tyranny (where loyalty means you have to act in the emperor's interest and not the nation's) and consequently suppression of free speech. It is the same system that ensures the emperor always stays in power, and was therefore chosen by the emperors. The same with most religions, they are but useful as a tool to keep the masses in order.</p><p>It is ironic that even now with the luxury of hindsight some of us still believe such systems of belief were vital to our civilization. For all I know we could have been on Mars 300 years ago had science not been oppressed by such systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not everyone in the world has a Manifest Destiny/Rugged Individualism/Self-Interest Maximizing mindset .
And who are you to state that nobody in China does ?
And should you be allowed to force your POV on those people ?
You 're just twisting your words to hide the fact that you 're supporting censorship in general .
Oh yeah , " social stability " , more like " We suck and we still want to be in power " .It 's also interesting that you brought up Confucianism because I grew up in such a family .
And trust me when I say it 's the same system that marginalizes the role of women ( support the father , support the husband , support the son ) , hinders technological/scientific progress ( hey let 's have a bunch of philosophers and novelists take care of the economy ) , supports tyranny ( where loyalty means you have to act in the emperor 's interest and not the nation 's ) and consequently suppression of free speech .
It is the same system that ensures the emperor always stays in power , and was therefore chosen by the emperors .
The same with most religions , they are but useful as a tool to keep the masses in order.It is ironic that even now with the luxury of hindsight some of us still believe such systems of belief were vital to our civilization .
For all I know we could have been on Mars 300 years ago had science not been oppressed by such systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not everyone in the world has a Manifest Destiny/Rugged Individualism/Self-Interest Maximizing mindset.
And who are you to state that nobody in China does ?
And should you be allowed to force your POV on those people ?
You're just twisting your words to hide the fact that you're supporting censorship in general.
Oh yeah, "social stability", more like "We suck and we still want to be in power".It's also interesting that you brought up Confucianism because I grew up in such a family.
And trust me when I say it's the same system that marginalizes the role of women (support the father, support the husband, support the son), hinders technological/scientific progress (hey let's have a bunch of philosophers and novelists take care of the economy ), supports tyranny (where loyalty means you have to act in the emperor's interest and not the nation's) and consequently suppression of free speech.
It is the same system that ensures the emperor always stays in power, and was therefore chosen by the emperors.
The same with most religions, they are but useful as a tool to keep the masses in order.It is ironic that even now with the luxury of hindsight some of us still believe such systems of belief were vital to our civilization.
For all I know we could have been on Mars 300 years ago had science not been oppressed by such systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31472002</id>
	<title>Re:Now Australia Please</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1268580540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already told Conroy to just fuck off when he proposed they filter YouTube for him.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already told Conroy to just fuck off when he proposed they filter YouTube for him .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already told Conroy to just fuck off when he proposed they filter YouTube for him.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468142</id>
	<title>Chinese want them gone anyhow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268486100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>China has always wanted to build market share for Baidu.  The general Chinese diagram of the world ("Us" vs "Barbarians") has never and will never change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>China has always wanted to build market share for Baidu .
The general Chinese diagram of the world ( " Us " vs " Barbarians " ) has never and will never change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China has always wanted to build market share for Baidu.
The general Chinese diagram of the world ("Us" vs "Barbarians") has never and will never change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468790</id>
	<title>Silence is consent</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1268491500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's one thing to know you are helpless to stop evil from happening.  It's quite another thing to accept it to the point where you participate in it.  Google got in there presumably hoping to in some way help turn the course a little bit.  If there's no hope they can do that, there's only money.  For Bing that might be enough, but apparently for Google it isn't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's one thing to know you are helpless to stop evil from happening .
It 's quite another thing to accept it to the point where you participate in it .
Google got in there presumably hoping to in some way help turn the course a little bit .
If there 's no hope they can do that , there 's only money .
For Bing that might be enough , but apparently for Google it is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's one thing to know you are helpless to stop evil from happening.
It's quite another thing to accept it to the point where you participate in it.
Google got in there presumably hoping to in some way help turn the course a little bit.
If there's no hope they can do that, there's only money.
For Bing that might be enough, but apparently for Google it isn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392</id>
	<title>Well, that's good to hear</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268472780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's nice that they're taking a stand, even if the gap will be filled by Baidu fairly quickly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's nice that they 're taking a stand , even if the gap will be filled by Baidu fairly quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's nice that they're taking a stand, even if the gap will be filled by Baidu fairly quickly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467672</id>
	<title>Not that much at the end?</title>
	<author>hackingbear</author>
	<datestamp>1268482560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Google closes google.cn, as now seems likely, it could still maintain its R&amp;D office in Beijing and its sales force, who sell ads on google.com targeted into China.</p></div><p>I don't know how one would call this strategy a "pull out". That's more "into the market" than before google.cn was established in a time when Chinese users just used google.com directly and that Google could not sell ads directly in China. Only the job of censoring is just shift from google back to the Great Firewall. Neither side seems to lose anything and both sides can now claim victory. "Don't do evils, just collect money and let others do the evils"
</p><p>Maybe google now becomes more popular in China than before. Very creative marketing move by appealing to populism!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google closes google.cn , as now seems likely , it could still maintain its R&amp;D office in Beijing and its sales force , who sell ads on google.com targeted into China.I do n't know how one would call this strategy a " pull out " .
That 's more " into the market " than before google.cn was established in a time when Chinese users just used google.com directly and that Google could not sell ads directly in China .
Only the job of censoring is just shift from google back to the Great Firewall .
Neither side seems to lose anything and both sides can now claim victory .
" Do n't do evils , just collect money and let others do the evils " Maybe google now becomes more popular in China than before .
Very creative marketing move by appealing to populism !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google closes google.cn, as now seems likely, it could still maintain its R&amp;D office in Beijing and its sales force, who sell ads on google.com targeted into China.I don't know how one would call this strategy a "pull out".
That's more "into the market" than before google.cn was established in a time when Chinese users just used google.com directly and that Google could not sell ads directly in China.
Only the job of censoring is just shift from google back to the Great Firewall.
Neither side seems to lose anything and both sides can now claim victory.
"Don't do evils, just collect money and let others do the evils"
Maybe google now becomes more popular in China than before.
Very creative marketing move by appealing to populism!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468820</id>
	<title>Missed Opportunity, plus bonus rant!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1268491860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really think people, and certain governments in particular, are completely missing the boat on this issue.</p><p>A good, effective search engine helps authorities find "illicit" content just as effectively as it helps the regular people looking for it.<br>Even if you are an oppressive government looking to quell dissension, or a "responsible" government looking to crack down on crime and kiddie porn... having access to good search results would -help- you do so more effectively.</p><p>"But...", the governments cry, "couldn't we block these evil things from the common prole while maintaining a 'privileged' access so -we- could search?"</p><p>No, you can't. The effectiveness of the search results is based on crowdsourcing and the accumulation of access data. Block access and you lose both the data and the effectiveness of your search.<br>If, for the sake of argument, you wanted to keep your people from accessing porn, or seditious diatribes against the state, you really should embrace open search engines.<br>Let people search and build up the data to efficiently find the things you detest, then you can search too and block those sites at your great National Firewall of Destiny. No matter how sites change addresses, as the people who want to find them find them, they will bubble up in search results, and your official firewall can be updated.</p><p>Effective search engines, like so many things, are in essence morally neutral. You can use them both to free or oppress.</p><p>The big problem the global community is running into is that, at a fundamental level, we simply can't agree on what is reasonable, unacceptable, or even illegal. Perhaps the UN can step up with a minimal set of standards for internet conduct... but otherwise we're sinking deeper into a mire of legal confusion. When The Republic of Republica declares it illegal to post images of the Prime Minister (because that helps steal his soul) or mailboxes (due to privacy concerns and a local mailbox vandalism spree), or panda bears (which local religion holds to be symbolic of pure evil), should German, US, or Chinese search engines purge them from their databases? We are now a globall community... and we are very soon going to need a global set of laws and guidelines.</p><p>Unfortunately, human beings have proven themselves spectacularly bad at coming up with reasonable compromises on such things. (The EU struggles with this regularly, as does the US.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really think people , and certain governments in particular , are completely missing the boat on this issue.A good , effective search engine helps authorities find " illicit " content just as effectively as it helps the regular people looking for it.Even if you are an oppressive government looking to quell dissension , or a " responsible " government looking to crack down on crime and kiddie porn... having access to good search results would -help- you do so more effectively. " But.. .
" , the governments cry , " could n't we block these evil things from the common prole while maintaining a 'privileged ' access so -we- could search ?
" No , you ca n't .
The effectiveness of the search results is based on crowdsourcing and the accumulation of access data .
Block access and you lose both the data and the effectiveness of your search.If , for the sake of argument , you wanted to keep your people from accessing porn , or seditious diatribes against the state , you really should embrace open search engines.Let people search and build up the data to efficiently find the things you detest , then you can search too and block those sites at your great National Firewall of Destiny .
No matter how sites change addresses , as the people who want to find them find them , they will bubble up in search results , and your official firewall can be updated.Effective search engines , like so many things , are in essence morally neutral .
You can use them both to free or oppress.The big problem the global community is running into is that , at a fundamental level , we simply ca n't agree on what is reasonable , unacceptable , or even illegal .
Perhaps the UN can step up with a minimal set of standards for internet conduct... but otherwise we 're sinking deeper into a mire of legal confusion .
When The Republic of Republica declares it illegal to post images of the Prime Minister ( because that helps steal his soul ) or mailboxes ( due to privacy concerns and a local mailbox vandalism spree ) , or panda bears ( which local religion holds to be symbolic of pure evil ) , should German , US , or Chinese search engines purge them from their databases ?
We are now a globall community... and we are very soon going to need a global set of laws and guidelines.Unfortunately , human beings have proven themselves spectacularly bad at coming up with reasonable compromises on such things .
( The EU struggles with this regularly , as does the US .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really think people, and certain governments in particular, are completely missing the boat on this issue.A good, effective search engine helps authorities find "illicit" content just as effectively as it helps the regular people looking for it.Even if you are an oppressive government looking to quell dissension, or a "responsible" government looking to crack down on crime and kiddie porn... having access to good search results would -help- you do so more effectively."But...
", the governments cry, "couldn't we block these evil things from the common prole while maintaining a 'privileged' access so -we- could search?
"No, you can't.
The effectiveness of the search results is based on crowdsourcing and the accumulation of access data.
Block access and you lose both the data and the effectiveness of your search.If, for the sake of argument, you wanted to keep your people from accessing porn, or seditious diatribes against the state, you really should embrace open search engines.Let people search and build up the data to efficiently find the things you detest, then you can search too and block those sites at your great National Firewall of Destiny.
No matter how sites change addresses, as the people who want to find them find them, they will bubble up in search results, and your official firewall can be updated.Effective search engines, like so many things, are in essence morally neutral.
You can use them both to free or oppress.The big problem the global community is running into is that, at a fundamental level, we simply can't agree on what is reasonable, unacceptable, or even illegal.
Perhaps the UN can step up with a minimal set of standards for internet conduct... but otherwise we're sinking deeper into a mire of legal confusion.
When The Republic of Republica declares it illegal to post images of the Prime Minister (because that helps steal his soul) or mailboxes (due to privacy concerns and a local mailbox vandalism spree), or panda bears (which local religion holds to be symbolic of pure evil), should German, US, or Chinese search engines purge them from their databases?
We are now a globall community... and we are very soon going to need a global set of laws and guidelines.Unfortunately, human beings have proven themselves spectacularly bad at coming up with reasonable compromises on such things.
(The EU struggles with this regularly, as does the US.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31477922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31469614
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31474872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31470968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31470662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31469500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31482252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467156
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471750
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31469028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31488322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31475006
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466980
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466724
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31470544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468890
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31469802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467352
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31472002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468372
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_13_1929235_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466780
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466480
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31488322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31469614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471750
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31469028
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468938
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31482252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31470968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466926
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466396
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31474872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31470544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31477922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466980
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31475006
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466902
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31469500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31471472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466912
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31466504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31467312
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31470662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468890
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31469802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468372
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31472002
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_13_1929235.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_13_1929235.31468142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
