I'm pretty surprised China didn't hand Google the dataset itself, or provide an IsThoughtCrime API. Perhaps they're actively looking for what sites Baidu proactively censors, rather than simply what gets blocked at the filter level. There's no way Google could operate without the PRC's blessing, and since they are, the PRC has no reason not to help them out with the firewall. But they can't exactly ask Baidu for a cup of sugar..

It's the difference between not actively resisting something that is morally wrong, and actively assisting in its implementation.

Maybe I'm missing a part of the plan but caching what was already going to be censored anyway doesn't seem that much further of a step. Is it that the censorship is more hidden?

If they had a "show censored results" checkbox would that be acceptable? Or is Google search currently blocked entirely and trying to get unblocked is the moral dilemma? I'm just trying to understand the moral difference.

> Maybe I'm missing a part of the plan but caching what was already going to be censored anyway doesn't seem that much further of a step.

If you are going to deliberately kill someone who you know is going to be murdered by someone else anyway, before they do that, are you a murderer?

I would dare say that most people would say "yes". The law certainly sees it that way.

Dragonfly is about making Google an extension of the Chinese surveillance state, collecting personal information about Chinese people committing thoughtcrimes in google search, and giving that information to Chinese Communist Party

Do you think that bing and baidu and whatever else aren't doing the same?! Google not entering isn't going to change that except now they get less of a say because they're on the sidelines.