Google in China
I guess this wouldn't bite so badly if Google's motto were 'Be Extremely Evil', or 'Eat Small Children'. But for a company that espouses 'Don't Be Evil', it's the hypocrisy that stands out more than anything.
I mean, it's not like we don't already know that major corporations make what we might call moral compromises in order to operate in various nations whose democratic norms aren't what those of us who live in democracies might prefer. And I don't think Google is the worst company, nor China the worst nation, in this regard. I mean, there are oil companies operating today in African nations who happily pay millions into the coffers of politicians they know are corrupt, and will siphon those millions from the needy who don't even have enough to eat. And there are bribes galore to be paid in all kinds of poor nations. In some cases it might even be excusable -- how do you weigh up the moral weight of a few thousands paid in bribes, against the several hundred jobs created for needy workers? No bribe, no jobs, and the unemployed workers won't thank a principled company for refusing to pay, thus keeping them unemployed.
It's a good thing that big western companies invest in nations like China. Such investment has led to an economic boom in China that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, and godwilling will lift hundreds of millions more in the years ahead. And it's tough for big companies like Google to stay out of China, because the Chinese market is so massive, and it's entirely likely that avoiding China could place Google at a huge competitive disadvantage in the future. It's easy to see where the pressure comes from, and why Google made the decision that they did.
But none of that obligates those of us who value democracy and free speech to like it. Nor should it absolve Google from the current storm of criticism. Google's entire brand image is about free speech. Freedom of information. Do what you like, find what you like, read what you like. Don't Be Evil. By agreeing to do the Chinese censors' dirty jobs for them, they've essentially compromised that image. You can't be for free speech, and against it. You can't pretend that you're more than just another uncaring corporate monolith, and then act like the worst of them. Or rather you can... it's a free world -- outside of nations like China, anyhow. But you can't do it, and expect people not to notice, and be displeased.
I mean, it's not like we don't already know that major corporations make what we might call moral compromises in order to operate in various nations whose democratic norms aren't what those of us who live in democracies might prefer. And I don't think Google is the worst company, nor China the worst nation, in this regard. I mean, there are oil companies operating today in African nations who happily pay millions into the coffers of politicians they know are corrupt, and will siphon those millions from the needy who don't even have enough to eat. And there are bribes galore to be paid in all kinds of poor nations. In some cases it might even be excusable -- how do you weigh up the moral weight of a few thousands paid in bribes, against the several hundred jobs created for needy workers? No bribe, no jobs, and the unemployed workers won't thank a principled company for refusing to pay, thus keeping them unemployed.
It's a good thing that big western companies invest in nations like China. Such investment has led to an economic boom in China that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, and godwilling will lift hundreds of millions more in the years ahead. And it's tough for big companies like Google to stay out of China, because the Chinese market is so massive, and it's entirely likely that avoiding China could place Google at a huge competitive disadvantage in the future. It's easy to see where the pressure comes from, and why Google made the decision that they did.
But none of that obligates those of us who value democracy and free speech to like it. Nor should it absolve Google from the current storm of criticism. Google's entire brand image is about free speech. Freedom of information. Do what you like, find what you like, read what you like. Don't Be Evil. By agreeing to do the Chinese censors' dirty jobs for them, they've essentially compromised that image. You can't be for free speech, and against it. You can't pretend that you're more than just another uncaring corporate monolith, and then act like the worst of them. Or rather you can... it's a free world -- outside of nations like China, anyhow. But you can't do it, and expect people not to notice, and be displeased.

4 Comments:
I've posted this thought in other blogs, but: Aren't we overreacting a bit here? Users in China have been revolting against controls on information for years; the prevalence of proxy connections, replication/mirroring pages, alternate search engines, etc. stands as testament to that. Rogue web sites with news and information pop up and info about their addresses gets distributed like info about FTP warez servers used to be passed around in the days before P2P sharing apps: By email, Usenet posts, dynamic links on other pages, and even plain old phone and paper letters. So really, how important is it that Google doesn't link some info? How much does Google actually get used by the Chinese? The really juicy stuff gets distributed by other means.
Also, here's a thought from danwei.org:
"When using the Chinese Google to search for "sensitive words" like Falungong and Tiananmen, the following message is displayed at the bottom of the search result page: 据当地法律法规和政策,部分搜索结果未予显示. It means "To comply with local laws, regulations and policies, some search results are not displayed".
That message is a clear indication to anyone with curiosity that there are more juicy offerings about that subject in the big bad world of the international Internet. Google's American-hosted servers are still accessible from China at Google.com, so an uncensored search is only slightly more hassle than a local one.
Google's 'caving in' to Chinese censorship has caused outbursts of self-righteous anger that Google is cooperating with the government in censoring the Internet.
The self-righteous anger is absurd. People who say Google should pull out of China rather than offer a censored service do not use the Internet in China.
And compared to the stony silence that other Internet companies use to explain their China content policies, Google's message is a stand against censorship in a small way: the message is a little flashing light that will alert Chinese Internet users to what Nanny does not want them to read."
(Note Just one little nitpick about the Danwei.org quote above: I believe the author is wrong about being able to access Google.com's US site; it's trivial to redirect to the local mirrors based on IP, and redirects like that already happen in other countries, like Belgium. But the point in that quote is not that other Google portals are accessible; it's that they are in fact letting users know "Hey, there's more info out there that we're not allowed to show".)
On top of all that, since when has Google been the only source for information? They're not even the only search engine out there. Granted, they're the biggest; I personally use the heck outta them, but they hardly have a monopoly on indexing the internet. They're no more the only search engine in existence than Wal-Mart is the only department store. Other options exist. Again, I point to the wandering rogue sites above, plus Usenet, email... the point is that too many people are making it sound like Google is the only door to information on the web, and that's hardly so. I don't see gamers, bittorrent users, or even some bloggers saying they "found" new sites regarding their subject through search engines; they normally find them as links from current sites, blogrolls, word of "mouth" ("mouth" being email, IRC/Chat messages, etc.), personal conversations, and so on. Not so much search engines in general, let along Google in particular.
I'm not saying that censoring Google doesn't impact information flow. It's certainly making it difficult. And I'm not saying that the stance doesn't look good; it does give the appearance of bowing to China's government. As one poster on another blog responded to me: "El Mondo, to me it isn't that they caved in to the Chinese, its that they refused to cooperate with the US justice department on a search for child porn. What kind of priorities are those?"
... meaning that they're being two-faced in standing up to the US but not to the Chinese. I concede that there are inconsistencies in their approach. All I'm saying is that I think too many of us on the blogosphere are overreacting to the impact that Google's (and MSN's, and others) have on information flow in China. We're talking about the population of a communist country with long experience predating the internet at getting around official information blocks and censoring. The info gets through, it just doesn't get listed through Google. And isn't info getting through the important part?
Hi Elmundo
I agree with a lot of that, because I've read quite a bit about how people in unfree societies go about dealing with government propoganda. Much of the time, they believe exactly the opposite of what the government tells them... which is why, I've read, a lot of Iranians currently have a very positive take on what's happening In Iraq, because their government only tells them how awful it is.
And, as you say, such societies become very adept at finding their own ways around the government controls. George Orwell's 'Animal Farm' was enormously popular in some Eastern European countries under the Soviet Union due to precisely these networks of underground information, and the government's bans only made such books and other works all the more attractive.
But having said that, I don't believe anyone who loves freedom can afford to be fatalistic about the future of democracy in places like China. Yes, I believe China will be democratic one day, but only because people both inside and outside China become impatient. How much of a practical blow Google's decision might be to the evolution of freedom in China, I don't know. But I do know that the kind of pressure that bloggers, and general public opinion in the west, can put on Google for having made that decision, will help to put Chinese freedom front and center in the public debate.
Chinese freedom has now been made an issue for companies investing in China to consider. Which in turn makes it a political issue. Suddenly, everyone's talking about it. New ideas of how to further Chinese freedom may follow, because people are suddenly thinking about it. That's a good enough reason to beat up on Google right there -- debate. Open public debate is the primary reason democratic systems are superior to autocratic ones. I say, let's use it against them.
To elmondo's point, Google could somewhat redeem itself if it were to run a disclaimer saying, say,
... for your doctrinal protection, some of the most relevant search results have been carefully placed behind the forbidden firewall of mysteries.
We have many offerings. Please review
Of course Bloggers get 10% discount
Refer a company and get 10% commission
* We have super fast servers with many upstream providers.
* 250 strands of fiber
* power for months on battery
* first month free if you mention blogger for 10% off
** many hosted solutions **
hosted solution provider Great Plains
Cisco Support
Novell GroupWise to exchange
hosted solution QuickBooks Pro
asterisk voip hosted pbx
Hosted Exchange Server
hosted solution for Microsoft Dynamics
hosted cisco platform for voip
** Need a Job? ***
IT Staffing
* Outsourcing *
IT Outsourcing
** Have a Case to win ***
Forensic Services
Post a Comment
<< Home