I have been a faithful Google user (even from the days where people
asked "Google? What's that?!") for a long time, and have converted
many in my family as well. I have always had respect for the company
and their technology in general, as well as their ethics and 'do no
evil" attitude. My _main_ source of news (so far) is Google news
because I get to see many perspectives on the same story and hence
feel that I get the _complete_ and more truthful picture. Now, it
really bothers me that Google News in China will censor websites that
talk about things as fundamental as freedom, democracy and religion,
among others.

This has a lot to do with journalistic integrity, and just as there
are certain principles that a physician must abide by, so are there
some principles that a news source must recognize and try to abide by;
and Google News IS a news source, just one whose sources happen to be
other news sources (just like the New York Times may print an article
from the Associated Press after mentioning the source). Google's
explanation that they are providing the ?best possible news search
experience for users? by not showing links to sites that would get
blocked anyway, is plain wrong, because this is _news_ we are talking
about, not furniture or consumer electronics: If you mask the
existence of certain news items then it's TANTAMOUNT to saying to your
audience that those news stories never took place.
Here's an example: Say I live in China and I hear a rumour about the
spread of SARS in a particular province, or about separatist
sentiments in Xinjiang, or about people prevented from marking the
15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. So I go to Google
News and it tells me that there's no such news story at all! (_As
opposed to_ showing links that I'm not able to access, or showing
information that certain links were not displayed.). Then how on earth
do I know if such things happened at all?

Do you mean to say that you have no problems displaying "In order to
show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries..."
but you won't display "In order to comply with your government
restrictions, we have omitted certain sites..."?! The former makes for
a "better user experience" but the latter does not?

My Question: So, to cut a long story short, I'd like to know what are
all the search engines (if any) that don't cow down to pressure from
totalitarian governments. I?ll be happy to start using those.

If my hypothetical copy of the ?Encyclopedia of the Universe? never
included the word ?star?, then either I begin to doubt the existence of
such an entity or I begin to doubt my encyclopedia.

Oh, by the way, in the Google News website, it says, ?While the
sources of the news vary in perspective and editorial approach, _their
selection for inclusion is done without regard to political viewpoint
or ideology_. While this may lead to some occasionally unusual and
contradictory groupings, it is exactly this variety that makes Google
News a valuable source of information on the important issues of the
day.?  (emphasis mine). Now that that stuff is no longer true, would
Google News kindly consider removing or modifying it? Unless of
course, you feel that doing so would detract from the ?best possible
news search experience for users?.

Thanks.

PS: I hope Google won?t censor my question as I think it certainly
complies with the policies on your Google Answer FAQ. My question does
not ?seek specific information about Google or Google Answers? per se,
but seeks information about other alternate search engines.
PPS: I apologize for the length of my question, but I needed space to
clarify the context.