Brin Defends Google China

[dutter]

While taking a break from the activities at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, Google co-founder Sergey Brin talked about Google.cn and the growing kerfuffle over Google's acquiescence to China's censorship demands.

Fortune Magazine's David Kirkpatrick managed to grab a few minutes of Brin's time in Davos, Switzerland, site of the World Economic Forum Summit. The conversation quickly turned to Google China, where Google's acceptance of Chinese government controls on what citizens can and cannot search has drawn comments and complaints from a range of people spanning from bloggers to Congressional representatives.

Brin said he believed Google is "doing the right thing" with their work in China:

"We ultimately made a difficult decision, but we felt that by participating there, and making our services more available, even if not to the 100 percent that we ideally would like, that it will be better for Chinese Web users, because ultimately they would get more information, though not quite all of it."

He also noted how Google blocks content in the US when it receives a DMCA request; the search engine also blocks queries for Nazi-related topics in Germany and France. That led to this exchange between Brin and Kirkpatrick:

Brin: ...we also by the way have to do similar things in the U.S. and Germany. We also have to block certain material based on law. The U.S., child pornography, for example, and also DMCA

Fortune: You actually actively block child pornography?

Brin: No, but if we got a specific government request. If a third party makes a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) claim that another party is violating copyright, and that party is not able to counter, then we are obligated to block that.

In France and Germany there are Nazi material laws. One thing we do, and which we are implementing in China as well, is that if there's any kind of material blocked by local regulations we put a message to that effect at the bottom of the search engine. "Local regulations prevent us from showing all the results." And we're doing that in China also, and that makes us transparent.

Falun Gong practitioners and human rights activists will likely be surprised to find their work lumped in with kiddie porn and Nazism. Topics like "Falun Gong" and "human rights" get blocked routinely in China.

Kirkpatrick then obtained an opposing viewpoint to Brin's position from Human Rights Watch leader Ken Ross, and noted his opinion on the subject:

I'm sure Google justifies this by saying it's just a couple of search words that people can't get to, but it's very difficult for Google to do what they just did and avoid the slippery slope. The next thing they'll do is ask them to tell them who is searching for "Taiwan" or "independence" or "human rights." And then it's going to find itself in the position of turning over the names of dissidents or simply of inquisitive individuals, for imprisonment.

Ross suggested that the search engines could face down China over censorship if they band together. That isn't going to happen, as none of the big search engines want to yield the promise of multi-billion dollar profits from the fast-growing Internet user base in China to homegrown efforts like Baidu, who do not have a problem following government dictates on content and search.

[kgun]

Don't mix business and politics. Politicians may say things that would be disasterous to a business man.

Through business relations, they may even influence each other.

No nation or people are correct in all regards. My experience with two math students from China was very positive.

I saw a Tv program about an US actress that were playing Henrik Ibsen's Nora, that slammed the door behind her, and left his husband. Nora was the little bird in his hands, singing for him.

She said that US soldiers were fighting for freedom abroad, but what were the freedom for people drowning in the waves with helicopters above their heads in New Orleans.

But the great difference, is that you could not say that in many countries without risking being put in jail.

[s_clay]

The people of China will, when they are ready, demand uncensored access to information. When this time comes, and it will; it will be due in part to the quiet insinuation of the internet and search engines like Google.

Steve

[mike]

I posted this in our other Google/China thread, but it works here as well:

I suppose I would ask;

Is this action an action Google would take on the behalf of any sovereign nation?

Would they make the same concession if we were talking about a smaller country with fewer dollars at stake?


Any takers?

[nashville]

I'll offer a take ...

I say no they would not enter that country. Instead Google would go for the publicity of saying 'no' and cite the 'do no evil' motto.

But in the worlds fastest growing economy (thanks to our outsourcing) what they mean is 'do no really bad evil"

Very sad.

[s_clay]

Well, Google says they do take this action on the behalf of Sovereign Nations.

"In France and Germany there are Nazi material laws. One thing we do, and which we are implementing in China as well, is that if there's any kind of material blocked by local regulations we put a message to that effect at the bottom of the search engine. "Local regulations prevent us from showing all the results." And we're doing that in China also, and that makes us transparent."

I think Google is trying to take the high ground here, but failing. There is an inherent ethical difference between filtering out Nazi hate propaganda in Germany and (effectively) promoting politcal propaganda in China.

I wonder what Dr. Kai-Fu Lee would have to say about this?

Perhaps he would say that China is not France, or Germany. China is China and deserves to be respected. China will change in her own good time: Perhaps influenced by the west, but ultimately from within. Perhaps that is why Dr. Lee moved to China.

[cz]

But in the worlds fastest growing economy (thanks to our outsourcing) what they mean is 'do no really bad evil" Very sad.

I agree, the worlds a little different than the mindset of academia. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

"In France and Germany there are Nazi material laws. One thing we do, and which we are implementing in China as well, is that if there's any kind of material blocked by local regulations we put a message to that effect at the bottom of the search engine. "Local regulations prevent us from showing all the results." And we're doing that in China also, and that makes us transparent."

There is an inherent ethical difference between filtering out Nazi hate propaganda in Germany and (effectively) promoting political propaganda in China.....China will change in her own good time: Perhaps influenced by the west, but ultimately from within.

I think the keywords here are 1. "prevent us from showing" and 2. "filtering out" But, in no way can these two be synonymous with 3. "promoting political propaganda" I do agree that China is a superpower and definitely has it's own agenda - reference the Chinese espionage stories that periodically crop up in the news. They do what they want, when they want and how they want. In this case I admit it is a bit different from the others and plays right into the hands of the Chinese political hard-liner propagandists.

Maybe this is a scenario that Google should have walked away from and left lying on the table. A lot of tough decisions for the guys at Google.

[sunnysidepewter]

I feel the most important issue here is the point brought up in the quote from Human Rights Watch leader Ken Ross:

"The next thing they'll do is ask them to tell them who is searching for "Taiwan" or "independence" or "human rights." And then it's going to find itself in the position of turning over the names of dissidents or simply of inquisitive individuals, for imprisonment."

I see the benefits of having even limited internet access to search engines in China, but if Google is just going to go along with the Chinese law, let the small Chinese search engines have the job. Why not use your place of power, Google, and do something with it? At least make a clause that you will absolutely, at no cost, offer over any names of people searching for certain key words, such as "Human rights." If you have a conscience about atrosities happening in China let it be known that you will have nothing to do with prosecuting individuals interested in "Falun Gong." Most of us feel there is nothing we can do to help, but you can, Google. Use your place of power for more than just money.

[crankydave]

Originally Posted by mike

I posted this in our other Google/China thread, but it works here as well:

I suppose I would ask;

Is this action an action Google would take on the behalf of any sovereign nation?

Would they make the same concession if we were talking about a smaller country with fewer dollars at stake?

Any takers?

Nope. It's nothing more than the money at stake.

Google will make concessions to the Chinese government but not their own.

Do no evil my a$$.

Dave

[usualsuspect94]

This is a black day for Google.. and for us all.

Make no mistake the people who run China are.. hmmm, let's just say not good guys.

When it came to the choice between siding with the oppressed grandmothers and kids in Tibet - or adding more coin to the pile, it was the greed that seemed good

Wrong move guys.

besides the general nausea, this has huge trust implications.

They may think they have made themselves secure by siding with the fat bully but in the long term this will hurt them.

Real shame. I thought they were good people... but money won over morality.

All the arguments about bringing more information to the dudes in China and thus helping in the long term is just cheap propaganda.

They could have had the same impact by staying clean, sticking with the .com chinese service they run and keeping a distant light on for the oppressed.

But no. They went for the flashing neon outside the shaby motel room. Very, very disappointed.

Why no resignations?

[Papadoc]

I think Google is rationalizing its move. Not that I don't hold Yahoo and MSN to the same standard... I just expected (or at least hoped for) a bit more out of a company that would fight a USA subpoena for private records when Yahoo and MSN capitulated.

The world becomes a more dangerous place when media sources and information portals start bowing to the whims of politicians and dictators. So what now? Hamas gets to tell Google they cannot have anything seen about suicide bombers? Saudi, Iran and Syria get to block anything negative said about Al-Quaeda? Maybe we should just pass the list up to Canada and see if they want to outlaw anything about sovereignty for Quebec or anything resembling a non-Canadian opinion. Maybe we should pass the list around Congress and see who wants what blocked.

Google could have played this very well the other way, and despite potential for long term economic gain, they should have continued to ride the white horse. Sure, Google would have had some explaining to do to stock holders, but you don't miss what you've never had. So now what? Now that they are in there, China has been handed the iron fist. At what point do they draw the line now? Does Google walk out if China gets more hinky? That would be a much harder sell to the Board of Directors than staying out in the first place. Now that they are in there and will be getting used to the money, it's going to be very hard to let scrupples get in the way of the big bucks once they start rolling in.

Every country has its sacred cows, but if everyone gets to veto what they don't like, we end up with a very sterile world of people who cannot appreciate differing opinions. I say shame on the French, shame on the Germans, and shame on China. But double shame on Google. The darned thing is that they could have spun walking away from the table into some killer kudo points for putting their foot down and NOT caving to the demands of a despot dictator.

[strum4life]

Anyone who thinks Google is somehow evil for compromising with China should take back everything they've ever purchased from Wal-Mart right now.

Even though some information will be censored, it's still a step in the right direction.

[TheGarty]

Originally Posted by usualsuspect94

Make no mistake the people who run China are.. hmmm, let's just say not good guys.

When it came to the choice between siding with the oppressed grandmothers and kids in Tibet - or adding more coin to the pile, it was the greed that seemed good

Wrong move guys.

I think this is a funny thing to say, when you probably havent even met the people that "run China". No country in this world is squeeky clean, and i dont think we should single China out... hmmmm?!?!

This is a purely commercial decision on googles part. Within the next 15-20 years, China will be the worlds economic superpower, with 1.2 billion people, and a country going through an industrial revolution... google would be stupid not to capitalise on this opportunity.

Isn't that what freedom is all about?

I would guess that the US government would support this move by google, it's brining money from China back into the U.S. after all!

p.s. dont forget they censor terms in france, Germany and even in the U.S (we have no idea the extent of what they censor)!!!

[kgun]

This is, as I know WPW, primarily a business related forum.

I repeat my advice:
Don't mix business and politics. Don't mix feelings and business.

Don't forget, China is a country with long tradition for commerce and business.

[usualsuspect94]

Kgun. Sorry. You're wrong my friend. That sentiment may apply in the mafia. But the result ain't impressive. (Tony Soprano whacking his kids?)

By that token you would have been against boycotting apartheid South Africa? ie against the civilised world. And you would have traded with Hitler. Sure many US corporations did, but you can bet they're not proud about it now. And from a business point of view it also leaves you exposed to future lawsuits from unforseen victims.

Garty. It ain't funny. Checkout what has happened in Tibet ovet the past 50 years. The people in power now are the direct succesors of that crime against humanity. And they are continuing it. So innocent people are suffering right now.

Other guy re WalMart. Good point. But it's not quite the same. Consumers can't be expected to research everything they buy. They trust the supplier. I'd say that with WalMart they're making a major mistake. But even so, what Walmart are doing - sourcing the cheapest product - and Google - acquiescing with the suppression of the Chinese people - are I hope you'd agree, on reflection, a little different.

I say boycott China wherever possible. Not to hurt the Chinese people, who are as good and bad as people everywhere, but to help them.

So I buy stuff from Taiwan. It costs a little more. But it's the right thing to do.

[freetraff]

Google is business. If Chinese government allows to get Google more users (a HUGE bulk of users), then why should Google care about human rights and democracy?

This is business. And Google has never been a peace corpse. They will throw some money on charity and public organizations and the fuss will get down.

[kgun]

usualsuspect94

That is not official US policy, nor EU, nor Norwegian.

You talk about extremities. If it were official Norwegian policy to boicott a regime, of course Norwegian companies had to do it.

Do you know what Norway did for the new government in South Africa?

<digression>
I am very concerned about the new tendency in the US after 11/09. Note, that was an attack on Nato allied Norway too. I worked in the same business, finance as a lot of people on 11/09. We lost most people. I see a tendency to isolation, that may be dangerous, since you think that everybody that does not agree with you are your enimy. E.G. France did not agree with the invasion of Iraq. I hope this site is not representative for the people of the USA. In my view it is a shame. A person that always agree with you, is he your friend? What friend is that? A dog that waves his tail? Which nation inspired the US constitution?

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

May be you and I should thank France so we can sit here and write / share thoughts for free? May be french people died for us in the three revolutions? And I hope that amendment will rule the internet.

I know, USA, China and Russia are three countries that can close their borders and not trade with the world.

I hope that that does not happen. If it happens, we may have a new cold war. May be some people want that.

I hope that was my little political comment for a while.
</digression>

Back to business.

[simmo]

Maybe I'm being a little dumb, but what if someone in China goes to google.com or google.co.uk or anything else other than google.cn. Do they still get censored? Would this also apply to people in remote areas who might have sattellite Internet access?

Surely, for this censorship to work, Google must have to know that the particular IP address being used is in China. This also includes DNS.

If you ask me, this business of censorship is far from watertight.

[axolot2]

As anti-American idealistically they may be, China is a sovereign country with its own sets of laws and regulations, oppressive by our standards they may be, and we, as Americans, must respect the laws and the rights set up by the Chinese government. We must respect them because that is what we want them to do with our laws, rights and freedoms.

Do we have to believe in or defend their practices? No, but we do have to respect them. No one in the world wants a differently civilized group of people imposing their wills or beliefs onto us, so why should we hold ourselves to a different standard?

If censoring the Chinese content for the Chinese people allows an American company to 'get its foot in the door' to an untapped market, then in the end our way of life, capitalism, prevails.

We can only hope to succeed in affecting their governmental philosophies by using the consumers in subtle ways, not by a full-frontal assault on their way of life.

Tearing down the Chinese political wall would be faster, but messier, with an American bulldozer. However, replacing it Chinese brick for American brick by the Chinese people will eventually lead to the same result without shock, strife and turmoil.

[mike]

Nice post axolot2, I hope you don't mind I took the liberty of formatting it a little bit for you.

It was a bit hard to read without some spaces between the paragraphs. I did not change the content at all of course.

-Mike

[pemburung]

I have to agree with those who say it's not up to Google to police China. Google's a business, pure and simple. If it wants to do business in a country, it follows the country's rules; if it can't, then no business there. I'm sure various Danish photographers view the US laws on nudity as wrong - why can't they publish here in daily papers, not only in restricted under the counter magazines, what they publish there? - but that's the law here. In Australia, a 2 year old child happily cavorts on public beaches without swimwear, and adult women lie topless on Sydney's city beaches, and at the end of the beach nude. Same thing.

Just because Google operates an internet search engine as a business doesn't make them special. If Google shut down tomorrow, would there be an outcry that they were harming free speech in the world? How many libraries, the historical, pre-internet depository of knowledge, carried the sort of pornography freely available in other countries? Have a look at the words published in the Oxford English Dictionary compared to those in Websters. There's a whole slew of four letter and obscene slang words that don't see the light of day in the US produced dictionary.

"But even so, what Walmart are doing - sourcing the cheapest product - and Google - acquiescing with the suppression of the Chinese people - are I hope you'd agree, on reflection, a little different."

I think the point here was that everyone who buys from Walmart, knowing so much of their stuff comes from China, is supporting China, and therefore its policies. But they choose to keep money in their pocket by doing so, playing by China's rules. This is no different to a business putting money in its pocket by playing by China's rules.

[greeneagle]

pemburung:

"...Google's a business, pure and simple. If it wants to do business in a country, it follows the country's rules; if it can't, then no business there..."

You always come through with refreshing straight to the point reality...Must be that clean country air and reflections when walking in the woods..

Ken

[mikmik]

Haha, I wonder if people are as worried about Tom Delay and his hanky panky and eggregious human rights abuse in the offshore sweatshops he runs : The real scandal of Tom DeLay

In any event, just because hundreds of companies aquiesce to practices in human rights violating countries, and indeed set up manufacturing and offices precisely to exploite these violations, that does not excuse anyone if they condone, or act in unethical manners themselves.

This is a good discussion: Google Aids Tyranny and Oppression!!! which I found in a Google group unrelated.

I guess that everyone in the US is party to human rights violations for doing business in China, buying forign made in China merchandise (see walmart for only a tiny tip of the iceberg), and borrowing one third of their current 8 trillion dollar deficit from Chine (yes, one third, over 2 trillion $ is owed to China).

I respect the ethics of Google far more than almost anyone, or any company that deals with China.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, well that is a fine cliche, and describes Bush and whatnot, but Google is a smart company, and their explosive growth, their company which has explosively grown is more correct, is based on a deliberate and fundamental philosophy of ethics, and have shown that in all areas, being ethical is very important, and a very, very strong backbone for any business.

Slippery slopes arguments just don't seem to apply to Google, they have a strong sense of what they will do, and what they won't.

Perhaps Google 'playing ball' is an inroad to the continued assault on China's indescretions (LMAO, what an understatement!).

As with their refusal to be a pawn of the DoJ or whatever, in the US, I highly doubtr that Google would help China persecute individual, I really highly doubt it.

What the big story these days should be, INO, is just quick Yahoo and others sold Americans when Google has refused to do the same.

As far as human rights are concerned, Google is in a class by themselves so far, most look downright nasty in comparison.

<I just noticed you said most of this already, pemburung! Sorry, I should look first!>

[mike]

Good to see you around MikMik. I think my only real beef with the whole thing is the fact that I think it's much less about advancing the betterment of mankind (to paraphrase the rationale offered by some) and more about advancing the GOOG financial agenda.

Which is why I asked if anyone thought Google would make similar concessions for smaller, less economically attractive, countries.

[pemburung]

Mike, I'm guessing not, depending on the size of the country's market. Most companies are going to assess the cost of a negative pr image hit vs the direct economic benefit. So, good pr and no real loss by standing up to Haute Volta (look that up in your 1973 atlas) and so the net sum is positive financially for the company. Stand up to New Zealand? More questionable. Stand up to China? A billion potential customers in the long haul? Given that most businesses who get into new geographic market areas early on tend to gain dominance while late-comers maintain an also-ran status, very unlikley.

[mikmik]

I just found this on the Google blog:
Google in China

There is more than this I quote - the conclusion of the post on the blog:

Obviously, the situation in China is far different than it is in those other countries; while China has made great strides in the past decades, it remains in many ways closed. We aren't happy about what we had to do this week, and we hope that over time everyone in the world will come to enjoy full access to information. But how is that full access most likely to be achieved? We are convinced that the Internet, and its continued development through the efforts of companies like Google, will effectively contribute to openness and prosperity in the world. Our continued engagement with China is the best (perhaps only) way for Google to help bring the tremendous benefits of universal information access to all our users there.

We're in this for the long haul. In the years to come, we'll be making significant and growing investments in China. Our launch of google.cn, though filtered, is a necessary first step toward achieving a productive presence in a rapidly changing country that will be one of the world's most important and dynamic for decades to come. To some people, a hard compromise may not feel as satisfying as a withdrawal on principle, but we believe it's the best way to work toward the results we all desire.

From my above post: "Perhaps Google 'playing ball' is an inroad to the continued assault on China's indescretions (LMAO, what an understatement!)."

Mike, you said:

Good to see you around MikMik. I think my only real beef with the whole thing is the fact that I think it's much less about advancing the betterment of mankind (to paraphrase the rationale offered by some) and more about advancing the GOOG financial agenda.

Which is why I asked if anyone thought Google would make similar concessions for smaller, less economically attractive, countries.

Of course you may be right, I am terribly biased when it come to Google, mainly because I saw stories about them and their ethics before I had even used the internet.
I am curious how they might handle both smaller markets/countries, and different kinds of censorship, like what if an extreme Islamic country wanted to block Christian links, for example.

They do state, in the blog, that the size of China is important. That may mean $$ is the important consideration, but I really think otherwise.

One of the things I do believe still exists, and Google is an example of, is that 'you can make money because you believe in what you are doing', not the more jaded 'you believe in what you are doing because it makes money.

Good to see you, Mike, and everyone :O)))
Thanks to you all!

[TheGarty]

Dont get me wrong usualsuspect94, i dont think this is funny at all, these are very sensitive issues, and i think its good that you are concerned with such a huge American institution, streching its wings into unfarmiliar waters

Originally Posted by kgun

I am very concerned about the new tendency in the US after 11/09. Note, that was an attack on Nato allied Norway too. I worked in the same business, finance as a lot of people on 11/09. We lost most people. I see a tendency to isolation, that may be dangerous, since you think that everybody that does not agree with you are your enimy. E.G. France did not agree with the invasion of Iraq. I hope this site is not representative for the people of the USA. In my view it is a shame. A person that always agree with you, is he your friend? What friend is that? A dog that waves his tail? Which nation inspired the US constitution?

Originally Posted by kgun

May be you and I should thank France so we can sit here and write / share thoughts for free? May be french people died for us in the three revolutions? And I hope that amendment will rule the internet.

You are exactly right on both of these points kgun, people need to look at the bigger picture ... i think looking at the situation from outside the U.S. gives you a bit more of a broad minded view of the actual situation ... its only about money ... period.

I dont think its necessary, and im not going to get into a slinging match about what country did / does bad things, because there are millions of examples of bad deeds done by both America and China, thats all i will say.

Originally Posted by kgun

I repeat my advice:
Don't mix business and politics. Don't mix feelings and business.

Just so hard too keep this one completely business orientated, would be a boring post otherwise ;-)

[DrTandem1]

Google has a new motto:

"Do anything for a buck."

As far as taking things back to WallMart is concerned, that is a non sequitur. Consumers looking for the lowest prices has nothing to do with a Google's hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another. Yes, if one personally thinks that China is evil and one should not do business with them, then yes, one would be a hypocrite by buying anything that was made in China whether it was from WallMart or any other retailer.

The issue here is not whether communist China is evil. The issue is Google saying one thing and doing another.

I think the reality that needs to be faced is Google finally admitting that it does indeed manipulate the SERPs. If you think it stops at China or Europe due to their laws and regulations, then you are naive. Google will manipulate any and all SERPs, if they think that they will make money from it.

[SPC2]

Don't forget that Google does exactly the same thing for countries like Germany and France. Should Google pull out of Germany and France because of the censorship imposed there? Of course not.

If you are in a country, you have to abide by the country's laws, regardless of whether or not you like or agree with them.

[usualsuspect94]

Great point DrTandem

The point about Google is that they come on like they're so special: "trust us" we're different... we'll scan your emails but it's OK, we're cool. We'll order ie control the worlds' info... but it's OK. We are... responsible...

And the problem with their move into China is that anyone who knows anything about what is going on in China - as Google must do - knows that they have betrayed that trust.

Check out this article about a very brave man in China who is risking his life as you read this, simply becuase he is telling the truth

>>France, Germany and other states that have coddled up to the Communist dictatorship in Beijing will one day have to answer to the Chinese people, one of the country's leading civil rights activist has told The Observer. Gao Zhisheng, a firebrand lawyer who has defended hundreds of victims of torture and persecution, said the Communist party was responsible for more deaths http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/stor...697368,00.html

and this guy's take on it

>>Google's founding principles fall at great firewall of China

>>The only thing that was surprising about Google's decision to self-censor its China-based service was that people were surprised by it. In the general media coverage, there were many gleeful references to the company's motto - boasted of in the preface to its IPO prospectus - of 'Don't Be Evil' (a phrase which, at the time, caused Wall Street investment bankers to lie down in (...) http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/stor...697233,00.html

Go GoogleSoft Go

It all seemed so good... real shame.

[Mel]

Lets first look at Ken Ross quote:

...The next thing they'll do is ask them to tell them who is searching for "Taiwan" or "independence" or "human rights." And then it's going to find itself in the position of turning over the names of dissidents or simply of inquisitive individuals, for imprisonment.

This is pure conjecture on Ross part and since the trends in China have been for more a more open society IMO very unlikely to happen and it may well be that Google will in fact be instrumentel to bring even more openness to China in the long run.

Lets remember for a moment that Google is a search engine, not the conscience of society. If they want to operate in China they have to respect Chinese laws pure and simple, just as they have to respect US laws if they want to operate here. What thinking individual among us is going to set himself us as the abiter of international laws and standards? The fact is that China has made great progress along the road to a more open society, and there are few if any Chinese who would like to see the current trend of moving towards a more open society reversed.

IMO it might be more sensible to look at the shortcomings of our own society (homeless on the streets, poverty levels at 20%+, drug pushers on the street corners) before casting stones at others.