China’s Search Engines – How Do Interfaces and Algorithms Manage Access to Digital China?
A Discussion with Students at Leiden University
For the vast majority of internet users, access to the web takes place either through social media platforms like Facebook or through search engines like Google. In fact, these two platforms have become so powerful in mediating our online experience that Goodman and Powles go as far as to argue in the Guardian that these are no longer our media. We have become their media.
Google has indeed become the premier household name for querying the web, with a market share that ‘is already a rounding error from 100%’ in most countries (Edelman 2011: 32). Its search engine has become so ubiquitous, write König and Rasch, that it appears old, unsexy, and unremarkable. Users take search engines for granted, when really ‘the bland surface and hidden complexity’ should ‘evoke important questions about the problem of their lack of transparency’ (2014: 12).
In China, Google has been blocked since the company left the mainland search engine market in 2010. Officially, Google’s move was officially fuelled by ethical concerns over censorship and hacking in China, though business considerations are likely to have played a major role in the decision. Cracking China’s search engine market is a challenge, not just because of state intervention: between the largest search enterprise Baidu and the smaller competitors 360 and Search Dog, digital China is fairly saturated with search engine offers. And yet recent controversies have raised questions about the biases and business practices of these enterprises (cf. Jiang 2014), specifically about the way in which Baidu guides users to paid content – at times with disastrous results.
As part of our Leiden University seminar on the politics of digital China, I have asked our graduate students to discuss the role that search engines play in shaping user behaviour, especially in the case of the PRC internet. How important are China’s search engines as entry-points into the web? What are their biases? Are these biases mostly economic or political, or a combination of both? And what can the Chinese case tell us about the way that search algorithms generally structure knowledge?
References
Edelman, Benjamin (2011), ‘Bias in Search Results? Diagnosis and Response’. The Indian Journal of Law and Technology, 7, 16-32.
Jiang, Min (2014), ‘The Business and Politics of Search Engines: A Comparative Study of Baidu and Google’s Search Results of Internet Events in China’. New Media & Society, 16(2), 212-233.
König, René & Rasch, Miriam (eds) (2014), Society of the Query Reader – Reflections on Web Search. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
Share This Post, Choose Your Platform!
About the Author: Florian Schneider
56 Comments
Comments are closed.
Tibetans haven’t had the luxury of search engines. To fix that lacunae, the Chinese government has recently launched Yongzin, a completely Tibetan search engine. The novelty is that Tibetans can now use their own language to to search for data. It is currently the only search engine available to them. Yongzin will obviously serve as a propaganda tool and, through datamining, as an instrument in controlling Tibet. But, it will also, according to Xinhua, aim to be a “unified portal for all major Tibetan-language websites in China,” Through managing what the search engine shows or doesn’t show, the CCP will have complete control over Tibetan knowledge on the web that is accessible to Tibetans. I brought this up because it serves as an extreme example of how important search engines can be in shaping worldviews and identity, and how they can steer you in the direction of whatever way it’s owner wants you to go.
Sources:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2016-08/23/content_26565928.htm
http://qz.com/764946/how-censored-is-chinas-first-tibetan-language-search-engine-it-omits-the-dalai-lamas-website/
Looking from the CCP’s perspective, the move to launch a fully controlled Tibetan search engine seems to make sense. The Internet provides a space fro alternative ethnic movements that might pose a threat to Chinese territorial integrity. One of the examples might be ‘Manchukuo Temporary Government’, a website that advocates reestablishment of independent Manchuria in China’s North East, together with granting independence for Tibet, Taiwan and East Turkestan. Question would be, who is more successful in the bid for public opinion of China’s ethnic minorities through the Web: the CCP or the grass-root (?) ethnic separatists?
Sources:
https://cpianalysis.org/2016/05/19/ethnicity-and-the-chinese-internet-escape-from-reality/
http://manchukuo.destroy-china.jp/
If the CCP is afraid of ethnic movements that might pose a threat to them, isn’t it weird that they make a seperate website for the Tibetans, thereby showing that they are in a way different? If they want to stop people from focussing on their ethnic identities and stop them from wanting to become independent, wouldn’t it be better to let them use the same search engine as the rest of China? I don’t really get why they don’t just make an option of searching in Tibetan on Baidu or other Chinese search engines
As is often the case with policies in China, they are being implemented with a political goal. Perhaps the goal of launching a Tibetan-language search engine is to show the outside world that China promotes the Tibetan language, instead of eliminating it.
I agree that the launching of a Tibetan-language search engine can be a way to show the outside world that China promotes the Tibetan language, but, if so, why it hadn’t done the same with the other ethnic minotirties?I don’t mean all the other 55 minorities other than Han, but, the ones labelled as possible ‘separatist’ or advocating for independence, for instance Uyghurs. I wonder why Chinese government created a Tibetan-language search engine and not also a Uyghur-language one?
Here is an interesting paper about Uyghur language information processing.
In the last part of the paper it is argued that ‘although the Uigur search engine has begun to appear, but the results are not accurate enough, the search scope is not big enough. The domestic and foreign each big search engine, such as Baidu Google did not support the Uighur information search, this shows that the Uyghur information search engine technology has a long way to go.’
http://www.atlantis-press.com/php/download_paper.php?id=21702
Well, Baidu is a private search engine, while Yongzin is a Governmental one. That’s why those two are separate.
Talking about the purpose of such search engine, I think it is to create a Tibetan language platform which is isolated from “dangerous” Tibetan language content. As search engine forms a worldview, it is an attempt to create a worldview where non-CCP narratives do not exist (or are minimized), and its users might not even be aware of that.
It’s going to be difficult to create a worldview for Tibetans where non-CCP narratives do not exist without the users being aware of it if they censor topics like the Dalai Lama. The censorship will have to be much more subtle if they don’t want it to be obvious that there is censorship going on.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/americanbuddhist/2016/08/china-gives-tibetans-a-search-engine-immediately-censor-the-dalai-lama.html
As you suggest adding the Tibetan language to the Chinese Baidu search engine, I imagine it will provide search results for the Tibetans which are not desirable to the CCP, but I don’t know to what extent there can be different algorithms within one search engine.
In a way, having a separate search engine may (virtually) separate content meant for Chinese Baidu users from the Tibetans which would then give the CCP more control over local people. China is a very diverse country and is rich in cultures. Some cultures are more nationalistic than other though, and as such the CCP is not likely to feel the need to control the more nationalistic cultures through local search engines. Obviously that is not the case for the Tibetans.
One other thing, you speak of the CCP showing that the Tibetans are different by using a separate search engine. The question is really, are they? What I mean is, to who is this difference really visible? I imagine most Chinese would be oblivious to the fact that the Tibetans have a separate search engine (or might not even give it much thought if they would).
Let me clarify things a little bit. I didn’t mean that there is any master-plan or grand strategy, or conspiracy in having a separate Tibetan language search engine vis-a-vis a Tibetan version of Baidu. What I actually meant that Baidu is a commercial search engine, while Yongzin is a Governmental one, created by Governmental initiative, not by Baidu initiative. I don’t think there would be much difference if this engine was created by Baidu or that CCP would anyhow against Baidu having a Tibetan search engine. Maybe such engine wouldn’t be profitable due to the limited number of users, low income etc., while State institutions are normally not profit driven.
I agree that having a separate search engine may separate content meant for Chinese Baidu users from the Tibetans which would then give the CCP more control over local people but this can also provoke a sort of loop China is applying to the Internet, social media and so on. If they start setting up a Tibetan search engine (in a sort of isolated position with respect to others, as is Baidu with respect to Google), is the Chinese government also going to set a Tibetan Wechat (or Whatsapp) and maybe also a Tibetan RenRen (or Facebook)? and can be this move be justified as in order to promote Tibetan language as well?
The special policies for Tibet are comprehensive. I believe Tibetans who can get access to Internet are educated in Chinese as well. They will search on Baidu. The Yongzin can be a kind of “main melody” political product, as Xinhua.net.
I don’t know how many Tibetans can get access to the Internet, but their “discipline” must be much more extreme and brutal. I make one point as supplement, the Xinjiang 7/5 Riots. Their online networking must be beyond normal channels such as search engines, maybe some local area network to teach protestants about how to homemake a bomb, etc.
Besides, Baidu is apparently also working on building an education resource platform that provides translations of educational materials in several ethnic minority languages. Baidu enabled search for these documents in Uyghur, Korean, Mongolian, Tibetan and Kazakh.
http://research.baidu.com/baidu-to-build-chinas-largest-online-education-resource-platform-for-ethnic-minority-languages/
http://wenku.baidu.com/huyanglin
There’s a remarkable language bias on the internet, that does not reflect the world’s linguistic makeup. The Internet is a very different place for those speaking minority speakers, especially those without a latin-script. While the motives and potential uses of Yongzin are most definitely questionable, recognising minority languages and their script is at least a positive move.
http://opentranscripts.org/transcript/an-xiao-mina-biased-data/
Good point. The articles I’ve read on the subject don’t discuss the fact that there might be many Tibetans who don’t know how to write characters. I think it’s important to remember that the majority of Tibetans aren’t political activists who want to access forbidden websites all the time. For daily use, Yongzin might prove very helpful,
This BBC article also offers an interesting anlysis about what can you find typing the word ‘Dalai Lama’ on Google and on Yonzim. The article takes a sort of strong political stance towards the issue linking it to topics such as Tibetan independence and Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, which I find at some point overpoliticized, but it is still worth reading.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37171855
My case below is the digital impact on major Han citizens. Putian is a small town in Fujian Province. Then some unskilled groups of local doctors have developed into nation-wide medical network by establishing private hospitals (most of them are unqualified) in the past two decades. Their major advertising way was investing huge amount fees to Baidu.com reaching almost half of its advertising revenue in 2013. This fraud propaganda was revealed in May 2016 when a college student was treated dead by the private hospital he searched online, which made mass Chinese internet users to realize that their life information sources were “unconsciously” manipulated by monopolized search engines.
How the research results rank or present is not only based on political correctness, but also advertisement investment made by institutions. When monopolized search engine company receives interest temptation, what we worry is not about authorities’ censorship but their ignorance.
Well, this case (and the link) was already mentioned in Schneider’s article.
Anyway, I have two points on this issue. Firstly, in my opinion, there might be too much blame put on search engine. Search engine results are not supposed to be ethical, but the medical system and its governmental supervision is. So, blame the Government!
Secondly, however, there IS one specific issue with Baidu ads. Baidu does not differentiate between paid and unpaid websites on search results the way Google does. So, on Google one could just skip the advertised content and go for “the natural” results, while on Baidu one cannot see which search result was bought. That makes scam websites more difficult to recognize. That’s for sure IS a big problem.
To a certain extent, search engines that are free for the user, can not be expected to not favour their own content or advertisers, on the other hand, as users, we should be able to at least access information on how these biases operate. But considering the effectiveness of political censorship, it’s pretty despicable that the same concern cannot be shown for suspicious healthcare products.
There was another case where Baidu allowed healthcare companies to moderate online health forums. “He alleged that the original volunteer moderator had been replaced with another one who paid for the position, and that this new individual was unqualified and posting information about dubious healthcare providers, as well as censoring criticism on the forum.”
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35340394
I think I heard about IS threats on Facebook before as well. As public online platforms, it is just a bulletin board open to any types of knowledge.
Following Baidu’s healthcare advertising scandal, Qihoo 360 Technology had also responded quickly by stopping advertising related to all medical services, while Sogou launched its own dedicated search options for medical information. The scandal seems to have led to an increased competition.
http://www.scmp.com/tech/china-tech/article/1941345/qihoo-360-stops-accepting-medical-advertisements-wake-baidu-probe
http://adage.com/article/viewpoint/advertisers-china-s-search-market/305704/
I think it’s smart for them to stop advertising healthcare options. But on the other hand, I think you are quite stupid if you rely solely on the search engines.
Like what this guy did: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36189252
Maybe cases like these show that an internet without any kind of government control wouldn’t be good either as things like these could then easily happen more often. Not to say that government censorship is ok, but in my opinion the government should play a role in checking what’s going on on the internet and make rules and laws to try to prevent this kind of internet fraud.
This is the boundary between security and mind control. Other than search result presentations, there is already much “material process” in China’s fundamental education. I admit most Chinese live in a mind-controled way. But what is controled is freedom for sure, as well as morality, positive working attitudes, etc.
However, there are also people who are trying to stop this control of thoughts, by using their ‘secret/coded’ language online. As in the article below is stated, when the censorship online was really harsh, “As a result, Chinese netizens were forced to come up with numerous alternative phrases to communicate their messages. These range from phonetic and semantic variations, synonyms, misspellings of words, nicknames and satire. When a new word is banned, they create another, and the cat-and-mouse game continues.”
So, with this strategy thoughts of dissidents can be spread on the internet. There is just one condition in this strategy, other people who read the ‘coded’ texts, also need to know what ‘codes’ are hidden in the texts. Furthermore, if too many people know it, these words will be banned again. So it is a possibility for more freedom of discourse on the internet in China, but will it be able to sustain a long time of censorship?
article:
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-20/want-circumvent-chinas-great-firewall-learn-these-9-phrases-first
Even if a little bit outdated, here is another example of creative ways of circumventing censorship:
https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/chinese-take-creative-approach-internet-censorship
It also reminds us that, even if Chinese users are creative in these new ways of expressing comments of ‘controversial’ topics, self-censorship is still influencing very strongly their capacity to speak freely.
We should also remember that, these creative ways of re-phrasing, because they are mostly used on blogs, cannot actually reach the entire amount of Chinese users and, if you are out of that context or blog, it is hard to understand the real content or the suble critique it convey.
Although it is true many people will be able to circumvent some censorship this way, the Chinese government is also watching the same websites. By some accounts they employ over two million people that monitor the internet, so it does not take that long for an internet-savvy person to comprehend the meaning behind these ‘codes’ and slang.
Link:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-24396957
With a revelant link:
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/1940668/baidu-scandal-spotlight-china-military-hospitals
This is a great overview of the three biggest Chinese search engines from b2b marketing perspective. Even though baidu.com undeniably is a juggernaut in Chinese search engine market, other web search engines still might have their special perks.
Since advertisement on Qihoo 360 is cheaper than on Baidu, it would be easier to find products from small and medium-sized companies there, while on Sogou one can access to Wechat’s content, which is impossible to find on Baidu or any other search engine.
These are very obvious examples of how different search results on Chinese search engines could be.
http://www.komarketingassociates.com/blog/top-3-chinese-search-engines/
It is of course hard to predict how search algorithms exactly work, however you can look at Search Engine Optimization (SEO). This ‘tool/knowledge’ can show what elements are important for your website in China. Though, you can also see it from the other way around, for example how Baidu organizes its structure of ranks for websites. For example Baidu prioritizes websites that are in Chinese, are hosted in China and don’t contain prohibited words. Though you can still not really see what the algorithms are, you can see what some main points are for Baidu to show or don’t show a website in their results.
Baidu and as well google both have a SEO check, where you can see if your site is optimized to their result standards.
Links below:
SEO for Baidu
http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/bloggers/going-organic-in-china-mastering-baidu-seo/
SEO for Google
http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/33164/6-SEO-Tools-to-Analyze-Your-Site-Like-Google-Does.aspx#sm.0000zj3q612y4curtc71ah25ul6gu
See the differences between China’s/Baidu’s search results and those from Google. It is pretty clear that Baidu applies censorship to almost every reference to the Protests of 1989 for political purposes. Since Baidu is China’s largest and most well known search engine, a large group of Chinese Internet users would regard everything found on Baidu as the truth/reality. This is another example of letting people believe in a certain narrative by blocking inappropriate content.
http://qz.com/216829/see-what-china-sees-when-it-searches-for-tiananmen-and-other-loaded-terms/
I agree that the search engines shape a certain narrative which influences people’s opinion about that issue. Not only ‘sensitive’ topics as the The Protests of 1989, which to us is a certain history fact, is prohibited, but also rumors are censored. Though rumors in my opinion are not as dangerous as certain historical events, they still can influence your thoughts, and thus they are banned in China. I give this example, because in my opinion it shows how far the government goes to lead the narrative people believe in. Even rumors are banned, while these are mostly proven to be untrue, this shows how careful and determined the government is in leading the main narrative.
Link:
forbidden words on wechat
https://citizenlab.org/2015/07/tracking-censorship-on-wechat-public-accounts-platform/
This narrative is even further controlled on the governments own search engine ChinaSo, a search engine that links mostly to other government owned websites and as such enforces its own narrative. Providing a very onesided view on a lot of things.
Link:
http://www.ibtimes.com/chinas-government-owned-search-engine-chinaso-unveiled-amid-increased-internet-censorship-concerns
Actually also Google does the same, it ‘censors’ some articles or let them unavailable. Look at this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/04/google-restores-guardian-links_n_5556598.html
This is just a small example but is to remember that in Europe, or in the ‘West’, we think we are part of democratic countries so we are enjoy the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to access the media and the Internet and so on. We are sort of stuck in this convinction and we are committed in pointing towards less liberals countries, authoritarian regimes and so on looking down on their controlled media, censoring systems, and surveillance. This is a very common attitude. We should be careful to divide the world either in black and white pieces, free and controlled countries and all sorts of dichotomies. I would rather think there are various fades and a whole spectrum of colours beween the black and white opposites. We are also denied access to some informations and people who speak out freely are, also in America (considered the most liberal, democratic country that should be followed as a model) in trouble with the government.
There is a nice documentary/film for whom is interested in more information about that: Citizen four.
I did not want to appear pedant, but sometimes we feel ourselves to hold more freedom than China, and probably it is the case, but we should try to see the two faces of the coin and acknowledge the limitations of the two contexts.
With regard to Google censorship there are more examples via this link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/google-censorship/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-22/google-is-the-worlds-biggest-censor-and-its-power-must-be-regulated
This is a really recent article about censorship on Google through the autocomplete black list, the google maps blacklist, the youtube blacklist, the google account blacklist, google news blacklist, google adwords blacklist, google adsense blacklist, the search engine blacklist, and the quarantine list. It says that Google, as a single company, block access to more than 100 million websites. For instance In 2011, Google blocked an entire subdomain, co.cc, which alone contained 11 million websites.
It is kind of scaring to know that Google blocks you even when you are using a non-Google browser. The author explains that: ‘When a browser queries Google’s quarantine list, it has just shared information with Google. With Chrome and Android, you are always giving up information to Google, but you are also doing so even if you are using non-Google browsers. That is where the money is – more information about search activity kindly provided by competing browser companies. How much information is shared will depend on the particular deal the browser company has with Google. In a maximum information deal, Google will learn the identity of the user; in a minimum information deal, Google will still learn which websites people want to visit – valuable data when one is in the business of ranking websites. Google can also charge fees for access to its quarantine list, of course, but that’s not where the real gold is. Chrome, Android, Firefox and Safari currently carry about 92 percent of all browser traffic in the U.S. – 74 percent worldwide – and these numbers are increasing; this means Google is regularly collecting information through its quarantine list from more than 2.5 billion people. Microsoft has also started using Google’s quarantine list in place of its own much smaller list; this would further increase the volume of information Google is receiving.’
About Google censorship: I’ve seldom felt the urge to hide my online movements from Google. In China I’ve been very careful to hide my tracks. For me, the fact that there’s direct political control is the crucial factor in wanting to shield my online behaviour. My behaviour is, however, rather naive. I know full well that Google’s information is open to anyone who pays, and there’s no guarantee that future governments won’t be making use of Google’s information to control their population – if they aren’t already doing so. For the one’s who’ve been in China: how do you feel about this?
As search engine watch reports in 2013, Google might be making a move to ditch tracking cookies in favor of AdID https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2296039/google-to-ditch-cookies-start-tracking-users-with-anonymous-identifier
DigitalTrends website explains how AdID can have an impact on search results and discusses the positive and negative sides in regard to one’s privacy. “your browser itself can be used to identify you”
http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/what-is-google-adid-and-how-will-it-replace-browser-cookies/
Will Chinese mainland based search engines also move towards using AdID instead of cookies?
What will the implications be for Chinese search engine users when this happens and they cant simply delete cookies and browser history any longer?
Even when I search on Baidu, there is no banner shown that I will accert cookies or not, let alone AdlD. So this would go unconsciously, if there was AdlD updation.
I think it’s still difficult to say what kind of implications it will have in China, as AdID is not even implemented here yet. Especially since the article on Digital Trends talks about the possible varying positive and negative outcomes that might come with it. I would not be surprised if Chinese mainland based search engines (or any search engine for that matter) adopted the AdID system as it would give them access to a great deal of information about internet users which is a powerful asset to have.
Political connection of the search engines sometimes does not only focus on blocking Chinese internet users’ eyes, but helps governments “clean” corruption. Anti-corruption now plays some effects in China. And internet as well as search engines is an effective to deter this kind of crime.
http://www.valuewalk.com/2015/05/baidu-bidu-anti-corruption-inquiry/
Well, to be more precise, this article only talks about Baidu cleaning up its own corrupt staff members (which is brilliant), not about how the search engine helps to fight corruption. These are 2 different issues.
Are there any actual cases where Internet search engines are really helping to fight corruption? I’m curious.
There are plenty of stories about human flesh engine (人肉搜索）helping to expose corrupt officials, (some examples on the link bellow) but it’s an entirely different issue.
http://listverse.com/2015/04/22/10-stories-of-chinas-human-flesh-search-engines/
These kinds of human flesh engine/grassroots anti-corruption cases do probably help decrease corruption to a certain extent. At the same time, they also draw a lot of attention towards corruption, something that I can’t imagine is what the Chinese government wants, without them being involved or leading these attacks. Not only because they might fear these corruption cases garner too much attention, but also because they might fear that people become emboldened by their successes and start looking for ‘tigers’ instead of just ‘flies’.
When searching for “tanfu jubao” (report corruption) on Tieba.baidu.com, you will get a list of posts about reporting corruption. Unfortunately, those posts don’t get a lot of attention.
http://tieba.baidu.com/f?ie=utf-8&kw=%E8%B4%AA%E8%85%90%E4%B8%BE%E6%8A%A5&fr=search
Besides, I believe that the Chinese top leaders do want to fight against corruption (at least theoretically). The Ministry of Supervision had even launched a website where people can report officials. Whether actions will be taken after receiving people’s reports is another question.
http://www.12388.gov.cn/
Not only that but in 2008 the People’s court in Beijing ruled the Human Flesh Search illegal. There are also different cases where innocent people are accused and their lives ruined.
I think the HFS engine also frighten people. For example, the ‘watch uncle’ (see link below) After he got fired, for multiple reasons, officials were too scared to wear their watch and often took them off before photos. So engines like the HFS one do have a lot of downsides.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-25913472
The advertising revenue of a search engine company is mostly determined by the traffic, the click rate and the price per click offered by the ads. Before its notorious medical ads scandal, Baidu had obvious superiority over other search engines in China because it has the largest amount of users. Now a credibility crisis of the medical ads on Baidu is obviously hurting its revenue profoundly.
link:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/chinese-search-engine-giant-baidu-220342911.html
As the biggest search engine in China, Baidu clearly knows its way to make itself useful for every aspect of the users’ daily life so that it is able to become an invisible yet indispensable part of the users’ life:
Baidu is bringing AI chatbots to healthcare
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/11/technology/baidu-doctor-ai-melody/index.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/shelbycarpenter/2016/09/13/google-facebook-say-its-imperative-u-s-hand-over-control-of-internet/#6cce1273550b
Apparently the US is considering giving up it’s control over the internet and give it instead to a non-profit organization called ICANN. In this article it’s speculated that this might give China more control over the global internet. Does anyone think this might be the case? Considering that China seems to focus more on the internet within its own borders I can’t image giving internet control to ICANN would change a lot in this regard.
It seems more likely to be Republican paranoia about China’s increasing power than anything else. Also, the article says that the US Commerce Department controls ‘it’, refering to the internet as being one entity. What ‘parts’ of the Internet does the US control? Which institutes govern other ‘parts? How do they control the internet? Answering these questions is important if we want to know whether it will be a good idea to shift power from states to ICANN.
According to my experience living in China for 26 years, for most of the Chinese internet users, Baidu is a verb, as in ‘Baidu yi xia(百度一下)’ and ‘I normally baidu when I need an answer to my questions.’ So far, if I am not mistaken, there is absolutely no other single word in China that can replace ‘baidu’ so efficiently in expressing ‘searching on the internet’. Although before Google dropped out of the Chinese market, one may argue that google as a verb could have reached this goal if it continued to operate in China.
Your experience shows really well how integrated the search engine actually is in society and even language. I have the same sort of feeling with the word ‘google’ . I also use it as a verb, with the same meaning you give to the word ‘baidu’. However, this was a slow process. Just in recent years I use google as a verb, because I stopped using other search engines. This shows how google has conquered virtual territory, but also linguistic territory and that it got really integrated in society.
Regarding to censorship of search engines elsewhere, the EU for instance, whether the right to be forgotten is a basis right of the citizens is a controversial issue. Although I agree that the right of the creator to the content and fruits of his creation are equally important as the freedom of expression and the freedom of information and this right has to be preserved, in reality, the right to be forgotten does not actually empower the individual to censor, it comes down to the demand of corporate transparency with data.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/sep/19/does-the-right-to-be-forgotten-ruling-threaten-our-right-to-know
The American Internet companies, considered champions of freedom, indeed needs to deal with local government to purchase their economics objectives and goals: “most companies are too preoccupied chasing short-term profits to put too much time and energy into implementing long-term free-speech protections.” This agreement concerns not just places where censorship is the norm but also Western countries, most of the times this firms can’t tell which requests come from governments. How to find a solution? “Companies can set up stringent review processes for legal takedown requests”.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/
The American Internet companies, considered champions of freedom, indeed needs to deal with local government to purchase their economics objectives and goals: “most companies are too preoccupied chasing short-term profits to put too much time and energy into implementing long-term free-speech protections.” This agreement concerns not just places where censorship is the norm but also Western countries, most of the times this firms can’t tell which requests come from governments. How to find a solution? “Companies can set up stringent review processes for legal takedown requests”.
The search engine Qihoo 360 announced in march this year that they will implement their search engine in Hong Kong for young users. Since HK doesn’t have such strict censorship, or barely at all thanks to the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, will it be easier for Chinese people to get over the great firewall and log into an HK VPN to search for political issues?
Also unlike Baidu, Qihoo 360’s focus will be on taking on fake websites and removing them, to improve their service.
https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2415568/search-in-china-goes-beyond-baidu-as-qihoo-360-launches-in-hong-kong