Sudar Pichai was summoned and grilled by Congress regarding numerous topics: among them was the Dragonfly censored search engine for China. What exactly is the problem with Google creating a state censored search engine for China?

Congress summoned Pichai for a reason: not an individual. I do not understand the purpose of the congressional inquiry and is in all likeliness publically documented somewhere by congress itself.

It was suggested that I request "hard evidence" and no speculation. That being said, I think that a superior response has credible sources to back a hypothesis.

  • It is hard to guess the motives of politicians. Relevant to the question.
    – David S
    Dec 13 '18 at 23:25
  • I've voted to close this question as off topic because I'm not diving into the head of a Congressman. Dec 14 '18 at 0:14
  • 1
    @DrunkCynic, just because you don't have an answer doesn't mean that a fact based answer can be found. Dec 14 '18 at 5:55
  • 1
    There are video recording of the questioning, and news articles that lay out the concern as illustrated in this in my answer. My answer show a rational connection between the two facts, so it reasoning or interpretation by a person with professional experience in search engines, not conjecture.. Dec 14 '18 at 11:52
  • 1
    @gatorback If someone posts an answer establishing that, I'll be the first to vote for reopening. If you're looking only for "hard evidence", and no speculation, you should state that more clearly in the question. Not one of the answers so far includes any sort of Congressional record, so the perception seems to be that that's not what you're looking for.
    – Geobits
    Dec 14 '18 at 15:39

Congress is interested because the technology used to censor searches in China might be used to censor speech on protected grounds here. For example, if politically incorrect keywords appear, what's to prevent that from being used to restrict 1st amendment rights in this country.

The article Google plans to Launch Censored Search Engine in China, Leaked Documents Reveal went into this logic, and is probably what prompted the question. According to the testimony given, its not currently planned for China. But who's to say they are applying it to U.S. searches today. From a technical standpoint, it would be easy, similar AI based filtering is the basis for many anti-spam filters.

  • Unless the US government was involved, how is it a 1st amendment issue? Dec 16 '18 at 8:52
  • There are concerns about public universities in the US, which are covered by the 1st amendment, suffering as a result of Chinese censorship. foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/09/…
    – Stuart F
    Dec 17 '18 at 12:31
  1. China is generally often seen adversarially by almost all sides of the isle (trade wise, politics wise, geopolitics wise depending on one's angle). Something that helps China in a big way is not going to be seen positively necessarily.

  2. Google is rather disliked by Republicans for using its not-insignificant power as a company in left wing causes and very progressive activist politics by its employees. Dragonfly isn't necessarily an end, just the means to attack Google from that view.

  3. As Wes Sayeed's comment stated, a technology which helps censor Chinese citizens would also be possible to be deployed against US citizens.


The problem is that censorship is often used by oppressive totalitarian states to help conceal atrocious crimes from the world, which encourages their worst people to commit even greater and more deadly crimes, up to and including genocide.

A peripheral political question is whether corporations or their officers and employees are moral abettors of such crimes:

  • In IBM and the Holocaust Edwin Black argued that IBM was culpable in providing punch cards and equipment for Nazi Germany's concentration camps:

    ...without IBM's machinery, continuing upkeep and service, as well as the supply of punch cards, whether located on-site or off-site, Hitler's camps could have never managed the numbers they did.
    -- IBM and the Holocaust, Second paperback edition, pg. 352.

  • Imprisoned pro-democracy dissident Wang Xiaoning's wife Yu Ling sued Yahoo!, under the Alien Torts Statute and Torture Victim Protection Act, for providing Wang's private information to Chinese authorities.

  • Google itself is divided; hundreds of Google's own engineers have signed a petition stating that:

    ...Providing the Chinese government with ready access to user data, as required by Chinese law, would make Google complicit in oppression and human rights abuses.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .