What we have here...

Monologue pretends to be the ultimate word. It closes down the represented world and represented persons. (Bakhtin)

It didn't take long for the good droids of Michelle Malkin's Wingnut World to rock n roll. Dave Winer liked it. Winer also cites Jason Calcanis:

Everyone knows the government of China can't police all of Google, let alone the Internet. No one knows this more than the Chinese government.

That's in line with elements of my note.

This (found here) is going to become a litmus test:

Tianamen Square via Chinese Google

Tianamen Square via US Google

But what is it testing?

• Let's say part of the difference has to do with the algorithms, and part with policy.
• Let's say the world begins to see that Chinese Google is a tad Potemkin Village-ish.
• Let's say the world begins to see that US Google reflects certain vectors of the US Guvmedia's symbolic order.
• The Googles are reflecting differences between two distinct cultural notions of a square, which has (oversimplifying) both a literal geographical location and a figurative political-historical resonance.
• Google balkanized. malkinized.
  

This could be a necessary first step toward something like communication.

With a monologic approach…another person remains wholly and merely an object of consciousness, and not another consciousness.

Meanwhile, one foresees tchatchka: Google sunglasses - across the frames, they will read: "made in China," or, "made in the USA." Mirrored lenses, inside out.

(See Dialogic for the Bakhtin reminder, and Mr. Scruggs for the Dialogic reminder.)