Google China

[Jim]

What is your reaction to Google's decision? http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/24/google.china.ap/index.html

 

My initial reaction is highly negative.

[Pangloss]

It'll be interesting to see people's take on it. As that story probably mentions, Google has tried to live with the motto "don't be evil", and is finding that more difficult to do than perhaps it thought it would be. After all, the phrase "don't be evil" is pretty judgemental and VERY non-specific.

[Jim]

It'll be interesting to see people's take on it. As that story probably mentions, Google has tried to live with the motto "don't be evil", and is finding that more difficult to do than perhaps it thought it would be. After all, the phrase "don't be evil" is pretty judge mental and VERY non-specific.

 

Here's another two mottos:

 

4. Democracy on the web works.

 

8. The need for information crosses all borders.

 

 

http://www.google.com/corporate/today.html

 

Google seriously needs to rework its mission statement.

 

I'm still clinging to the hope for an Oprahesq 180 degree turn. Yahoo already caved, right?

[Jim]

It'll be interesting to see people's take on it. As that story probably mentions, Google has tried to live with the motto "don't be evil", and is finding that more difficult to do than perhaps it thought it would be. After all, the phrase "don't be evil" is pretty judgemental and VERY non-specific.

 

 

At least Google has stopped saying it does not censor: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/google_doesnt_censor/

 

Here's Google's justification:

 

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, it will be better for Chinese Web users, because ultimately they would get more information, though not quite all of it.

 

Very altruistic.

[john5746]

What is your reaction to Google's decision? http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/24/google.china.ap/index.html

 

My initial reaction is highly negative.

 

I don't see the problem. If they want to be in China, they have to abide by their rules. It isn't like they are dumping hazardous waste or using slave labor. Their main objective is money, of course. But, you can't expect them to wait for the world to change before entering their markets.

[Dak]

this site will show you the differnce between a google.com and a google.cn search (the one on the right is google.com i think).

[Easybeat]

I am a bit of a cynic when it comes to this sort of thing.

Unfortunately Google is now a major corporation, by not self censoring itself in China it would have more than likely have either been very heavily censored or banned entirely from use in China. This would have been a very bad business decision so hence it makes the best of a bad situation, it is however quite amusing that they refuse to handover logs to the American government at the same time though.

[Pangloss]

Google seriously needs to rework its mission statement.

 

Maybe... or perhaps they just need to be ready to defend the one they have. There's nothing evil about making money, for example, but it's just a matter of time before the far left crowd starts comparing Google with Wal-Mart, IMO.

 

Google is in the business of making money, not setting foreign policy or (fashionable mission statements aside) setting moral standards. And there's money to be made in China. So they're not being evil, and they're doing exactly what their investors expect them to do. After all, it's China's policy to censor content, not Google's.

 

Big business is not the vehicle that will put a stop to human rights violations around the world. If anything, we should be less concerned about solving the world's ills and and more mercenary/confrontational about showboating our greatest asset -- our capitalist culture, and everything it represents that tyranical governments hate and fear.

 

Iran's president wants to nuke somebody? Gosh I'm sorry to hear it. Want a Whopper... your way?

There's a genocide in Freedonia? Gee. Have you heard the new Britney Spears CD about Africa?

Castro's beating dissidents? Have a Coke and a smile, and you'll be giving ten cents to a poor Cuban exile family in Miami.

 

We're damned good at that stuff, and it meshes perfectly with the American tradition of gradual change and small steps toward a brighter future. And none of our people die in the process.

[bascule]

I don't get why so many people are harping on Google for censoring Google China while no one seems to care that AOL and MSN blithely cooperated with the government subpoenia for their search data

[Jim]

Maybe... or perhaps they just need to be ready to defend the one they have. There's nothing evil about making money' date=' for example, but it's just a matter of time before the far left crowd starts comparing Google with Wal-Mart, IMO.

 

Google is in the business of making money, not setting foreign policy or (fashionable mission statements aside) setting moral standards. And there's money to be made in China. So they're not being evil, and they're doing exactly what their investors expect them to do. After all, it's China's policy to censor content, not Google's.

 

Big business is not the vehicle that will put a stop to human rights violations around the world. If anything, we should be less concerned about solving the world's ills and and more mercenary/confrontational about showboating our greatest asset -- our capitalist culture, and everything it represents that tyrannical governments hate and fear.

 

Iran's president wants to nuke somebody? Gosh I'm sorry to hear it. Want a Whopper... [i']your[/i] way?

There's a genocide in Freedonia? Gee. Have you heard the new Britney Spears CD about Africa?

Castro's beating dissidents? Have a Coke and a smile, and you'll be giving ten cents to a poor Cuban exile family in Miami.

 

We're damned good at that stuff, and it meshes perfectly with the American tradition of gradual change and small steps toward a brighter future. And none of our people die in the process.

 

I do not accept that it is ethical for all businesses to provide any services to repressive regimes (nor do I think you are suggesting such). There is a fundamental difference between selling a hamburger and providing access to a service which purports to link the global internet but which has been censored by a repressive government. The label Google intends to put at the bottom of the search listings is helpful ("Local regulations prevent us from showing all the results.") but it would be much more helpful to list at least the exact number of searches being censored. http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/25/news/international/davos_fortune/?cnn=yes

[Jim]

I don't get why so many people are harping on Google for censoring Google China while no one seems to care that AOL and MSN blithely cooperated with the government subpoenia for their search data

 

I hadn't focused on AOL and MSN. If they are self-censoring, I think that they would deserve some heat as well. I am focused on the details of Google now, because that is what is being reported.

[Dak]

Im sure that there are sites that google has removed from their english and american google searches due to their nature (more than likely due to differenses in the age of sexual consent in places like america and russia), and i dont really see that much differense -- from googles point of view -- between that and the current situation with china: both are censoring their search results to comply with regional legislature.

 

As pangloss said, googles job isn't to dictate a countries policy -- it is to offer search results, whilst obviously refraining from breaking the laws of the local govournment.

[Pangloss]

The "essential services" argument is interesting, and one I have not heard before. I'm not sure that argument, shall we say, has legs, but it's interesting.

 

One implication of that angle is that the US government could direct Google to change its service. But since that's unlikely to happen given China's MFN status and our general free-trade bent, it also seems unlikely that a company will elect to do something on its own that its government wouldn't force them to do anyway.

 

(That being the old "if you regulate them then they have no incentive to approach business in an ethical fashion, since they can just rely on regulation to tell them what's acceptable and what's not" argument. I believe Alan Greenspan first brought this up during his Objectivist period in the 1950s.)

[Jim]

Im sure that there are sites that google has removed from their English and American google searches due to their nature (more than likely due to differences in the age of sexual consent in places like America and Russia)' date=' and i dont really see that much differense -- from googles point of view -- between that and the current situation with china: both are censoring their search results to comply with regional legislature.

 

As pangloss said, googles job isn't to dictate a countries policy -- it is to offer search results, whilst obviously refraining from breaking the laws of the local govournment.[/quote']

 

I'm sure you are not saying that a corporation can never cross an ethical line in providing its good and services to a repressive regime. For example, I'm sure you would condemn IBM if it provided data services to the third reich essential in effecting the holocaust. http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/ (Standard disclaimer - I'm not comparing actions today in China to the holocaust but am making the general point that you can't give a corporation free license to sell goods and services to any regime. Some lines have to be drawn.)

 

In America, I believe Google "censors" child pornography and cites where there has been specific complaints of infringement of intellectual property.

 

I'm sure you would not compare this kind of "censorship" to redacting history about Tienanmen square for the Chinese, or if the Nazi's had won WWII, the final solution.

[Jim]

The "essential services" argument is interesting' date=' and one I have not heard before. I'm not sure that argument, shall we say, has legs, but it's interesting.

 

One implication of that angle is that the US government could direct Google to change its service. But since that's unlikely to happen given China's MFN status and our general free-trade bent, it also seems unlikely that a company will elect to do something on its own that its government wouldn't force them to do anyway.

 

(That being the old "if you regulate them then they have no incentive to approach business in an ethical fashion, since they can just rely on regulation to tell them what's acceptable and what's not" argument. I believe Alan Greenspan first brought this up during his Objectivist period in the 1950s.)[/quote']

 

I'm not sure what it adds to the debate to refer to Google's point of view. A corporation can justify about anything if it is acting only according to its own profit motivation.

 

I do not understand your second point. I wasn't suggesting Google lacked the legal ability to aid the Chinese government in redacting historically inconvenient facts from its own national memory.

 

I do not believe governmental regulations describe ethical behavior.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure what it adds to the debate to refer to Google's point of view. A corporation can justify about anything if it is acting only according to its own profit motivation.

 

(I could have done without that perjorative first sentence. I am sure what it adds to the debate, and what it adds to the debate is what I posted above -- my honest opinion. That's what you asked for in Post #1. Remember?)

 

At any rate, why wouldn't Google's point of view be relevent here? Isn't it pertinent to the subject? Why would Google's position not be relevant to a discussion on Google's activities in China?

 

I do not understand your second point. I wasn't suggesting Google lacked the legal ability to aid the Chinese government in redacting historically inconvenient facts from its own national memory.

 

I think you misunderstood me' date=' which may well be my fault for being unclear. I made a bit of a leap ahead of the current discussion in order to suggest that opponents of Google's choice might be able to find some remedy in asking the US government to step in. It was simple speculation on my part, tangential to the discussion. I hope this clarifies things.

 

I do not believe governmental regulations describe ethical behavior.

 

That's certainly a valid opinion, and it would be an interesting subject for another discussion. The specific essay that this discussion triggered a connection to in my mind was Alan Greenspan's classic essay on the nature of anti-trust legislation, and how it could be argued that regulation has, in effect, actually created the need for regulation -- practically out of whole cloth. It's an interesting read, and it can be found (amongst other places) in Ayn Rand's essay collection entitled "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", available for purchase at most bookstores.

[bascule]

I do not accept that it is ethical for all businesses to provide any services to repressive regimes

 

Are they really providing a service to an oppressive regime, or to the Chinese people? (False dichotomy, I suppose, they're really providing it to both)

[Dak]

I'm sure you are not saying that a corporation can never cross an ethical line in providing its good and services to a repressive regime. For example, I'm sure you would condemn IBM if it provided data services to the third reich essential in effecting the holocaust. http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/[/url'] (Standard disclaimer - I'm not comparing actions today in China to the holocaust but am making the general point that you can't give a corporation free license to sell goods and services to any regime. Some lines have to be drawn.)

 

Google aren't 'effecting' the data-censoring, tho: the chinese country has approximately 14 gateways connecting them to the rest of the internet that all have filtering software installed, meaning that the censoring is happening anyway, via google or otherwize.

 

So i dont see googles actions as helping the censoring -- which would happen with or without google -- but JUST as complying with the law.

 

And yes, they could withold their servises* from china, but as a slight alteration on bascules point, they're not really serving the chinese govournment, but themselves (making money) and the chinese people.

 

I dont think that googles refusal to relinquish search data should be overlooked, either: I'd prefer to see most chinese people using a search engine that won't report the users that search for terms such as 'human rights' to the chinese govournment when requested, all things concidered.

 

*actually, if i remember correctly google are witholding certain services -- such as GMail -- from china... wonder why?

[Jim]

(I could have done without that perjorative first sentence. I am[/i'] sure what it adds to the debate, and what it adds to the debate is what I posted above -- my honest opinion. That's what you asked for in Post #1. Remember?)

 

You misunderstood my point, Pangloss. I wasn't saying you shouldn't express your opinion. I was saying, perhaps inartfully, that I do not think the perspective of the corporation (which is motivated to increase profits) is relevant to the issue being debated, i.e. whether the corporation's actions are ethical.

 

I didn't mean this in the perjorative sense that the opinion was frivilous or should not have been expressed but in the sense that it does not advance analysis. If it helps, I'm only direct with people I respect. Anyway, I am sorry I wasn't more clear as to meaning.

 

I'll give some thought to the substance of what was said and respond later today.

 

Jim

[Pangloss]

Oh I see. Perhaps I shouldn't have brought it up, then. But just to try and clarify, Greenspan's point was that while corporations are somewhat mindless in the sense that you mention, they do seek competitive advantages against one another, and regulation removes a potential area for marketing those advantages (e.g. "Google: Buy from us because we're not evil", or "ENRON: The Evil Corporation You Love to Hate").

 

That's the Google "point of view" I was referring to above. If you had the US government step in and say "Google, you can't do that, because China is repressing its people", then Google would have to stop. But in so doing, you relieve the Googles of the market of any interest in further marketing any perceived ethical advantages over competitors, because the next "evil" thing that comes up is just going to get regulated anyway.

 

This is a little silly, because I was the one actually suggesting regulation as an avenue of remedy, so I'm actually arguing against myself. I apologize for overcomplicating the discussion.

[JustStuit]

*actually, if i remember correctly google are witholding certain services -- such as GMail -- from china... wonder why?

Because these services require the Chinese giving information about themselves and Google doesn't want to be in a situation where the Chinese government asks/demands for the private information they would have.

[Dak]

Ah yes, i suppose the chinese govournment could also ask for the emails, or for google to scan the emails for certain keywords.

[padren]

Well, I am a firm believer in the importance of corporate ethics, just because they are often abandoned doesn't mean they should be given up on.

 

 

Still, with google, and specifically with China, I would really like to see them more dependant and tied into western based services. If they can get better telecom through our satilites, use more western based web services for finance and research, I'd say all the better.

 

The more both the US and China can benefit from bridging the divides the more costly potential future conflicts and isolationist movements would be.

 

 

There is room for improvement, and I definately have a very different point of view on the sale of military goods to dictatorships. (Don't those nations always end up overthrowing their dictators, then somehow get stuck with the national debts chalked up by those same dictators to keep guns at their heads? How do we end up looking them in the eye while we deliver that bill anyway? /wayofftopicrant)

[JustStuit]

If they didn't filter it I doubt China would allow it.

[Sisyphus]

I'm actually not too concerned about this. China has been demonstrating a liberalization that is certainly slow, but also steady and stable. Forcing absolute information access before they're ready is not going to benefit anyone, as they simply won't accept it. We don't want revolution in China, we want an educated population and responsible dissent. I actually agree with Google's justification on this.