All I was stating is that part one of the two-part proposal (encrypting all traffic) should be done on it's own - that providing access to blocked content took Google from a passive position to an active one. Most of the students at Tiananmen Square didn't risk getting run over by a tank, but we still talk about the fact they had the courage to rally. If GreatFire.org wants to decides to take on the tank, that's fine, but it's not fair to push Google in front of the tank ... that's their decision to make.
P.S. The article also discusses Google's "Don't be evil" model ... I agree that it would be admirable to also try to abate evil where they can.
P.P.S. After watching the Matt Damon video in another posting, I'm reconsidering blind obedience myself!
Why are you tackling censorship in China first and not any other country, like your own?
GreatFire.org is at the cutting-edge of research (including from Harvard, Princeton, and many software engineers globally and in China) to end the censorship in China. GreatFire.org is on the front lines of solving censorship.
This idea is new research that works.
Google has a preponderant position in search in 125 nations, and is not hurting that much from retreating to HongKong. Baidu can't even get a foothold going in Japan.
On the other hand, the blunt mercantilism which keeps Google, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook out of China stands to weaken by applying this excellent idea.
Google actually may benefit by responding adroitly to the intentional evisceration of Google by the Chinese government.
The beauty of this research is that it probes a blind spot in China policy not easily remedied, while hitting the one place China cares about - money and the national economy.