Google doing evil
January 29th, 2006 at 10:39 am by David FarrarGoogle senior policy counsel Andrew McLaughlin has blogged a defence of Google’s decision to set up a Google China service which will censor out terms unacceptable to the Chinese Government.
Russell Brown has also said he feels somewhat sorry for Google as other companies are already doing this. As Russell points out though when your company motto is “Don’t Be Evil” then you can’t complain if people criticise you for being evil.
To put it more bluntly I totally expect Microsoft to censor information in return for market share in China. Google though has built up its brand and profile as supporting freedom of information everywhere and this week is for me the week they have jumped the shark and I go from being a passionate fan to merely a customer.
McLaughlin defends Google’s decision by saying that Chinese users were unable to access many of their existing international services such as Google News and that setting up a local service will provide more information to them. This is duplicitous as it misses the point that Google is not responsible for China blocking access to some of its services but is responsible for agreeing to suppress information on its own servers.
The defence of respecting local laws and comparing it to very minor restrictions in Germany on Nazi memorabilia is also flawed. Germany does not block its citizens from using the international Google. A better comparison would be to ask whether Google would now agree to set up an Iranian version which blocks all articles relating to the Holocaust.
I regard suppressing of a citizen’s right to access public information as a heinous crime. It is more important to me than the right to vote. If I had to choose between losing the right to vote and losing the right to freely access news and information, I would choose the former.
Google had a chance of being a beacon of free speech and information by refusing to censor on behalf of the Chinese Government. Yes Chinese users would have remained unable to access many of their services but by doing so it would have encouraged more people in China to support a change in their political culture so they could access Google freely.
Tags: Internet
January 29th, 2006 at 10:57 am
We will be supping much more from this cup as China strenthen’s its position as an economic superpower. Of course the other emerging country is India which is much more in tune with our values and maybe we can drop China and focus on India.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 11:31 am
I can see your point, DPF. I don’t think Google ‘did right’ with this, except in the purest capitalist sense. They did right by their shareholders. This is the mandate of a private company, usually, although I personally agree that they should exercise morality and tell China to get lost. So should all private companies who are asked to deliberately curtail freedom of thought and access to information.
But they will not, because dollars talk to private companies. If Google was some kind of government institution then we could perhaps expect it to follow the will of it’s people. The most surprising thing about this is that Google in the past had not seemed likely to do this. But now that it’s a public company I guess they really have to do what the shareholders say.
I also take Russell’s point that the Chinese getting some Google is better than no Google at all. That is the only silver lining to the cloud.
Tim, good luck dropping China.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 11:31 am
Nice to see Google also pulled their convenient little spiel about the cleanliness of their search results – that they don’t censor because they “believe strongly in allowing the democracy of the web to determine the inclusion and ranking of sites in [their] search results”.
Democracy is obviously a dirty word over at Google now. But hey, that’s the nature of the system we’ve built for ourselves – we have major companies holding significant power, who are required to make as much money as possible or be held accountable to their shareholders. Ultimately, censoring results in China is better for Google’s shareholders.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 11:49 am
> I also take Russell’s point that the Chinese getting some Google is better than no Google at all.
I think it is not better. It is even more dangerous for a leader of a country to have a sophisticated tool for controlling the flow of information than a blunt one. And that is all google gets to choose.
Anyway it would bevery hard to censor a determined person who wants information UNLESS you offer a vastly better service with your censored info.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 11:57 am
Lots of companies start out with high ideals, but eventually they only have allegiance to their shareholders. Thats capitalism for you.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Genius, I think that as a search engine, Google is still the best, and any Chinese that are researching things that are not politically sensitive will benefit from it’s clever system. That is the silver lining.
The cloud is the censorship. Google could have taken a stand. It would cost them, but given their motto, it could have been worth it. Certainly it is worth it from a moral point of view, and I hold the mad belief that companies *could* act morally, even if most of the time they don’t.
I’m not saying it was right that Google agreed to censorship. I’m saying that despite the censorship, the Chinese still get something of value. That’s simply admitting that some good will come of it, even if some bad is perpetuated.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Now that they are a public company, I wonder if their motto will change?
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
I can remember a former NZ National Party MP, who formed the NZ Conservative Party wanted the NZ Internet also censored, and said it would be censored if he was in power.
The trouble being since China will be able to get Google censored it will be a step for other countries wanting their Internet censored also.
Vote:At least it could be a crusade for National MP Jacqui Dean to get her teeth stuck into after she gets party pills banned
January 29th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
“Don’t be evil, unless it enhances shareholder value”
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
Here is an article that throws more perspective:
Vote:http://www.blogherald.com/2006/01/29/supporting-google-in-china/
January 29th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Excellent post dpf – I’m with you on this.
“I also take Russell’s point that the Chinese getting some Google is better than no Google at all.”
No I think that’s crap, and I ditto David’s point in his post: “Yes Chinese users would have remained unable to access many of their services but by doing so it would have encouraged more people in China to support a change in their political culture so they could access Google freely.”
Call us idealists, but the Chinese people need to take responsibility for changing their regime. All google have done is commercially endorsed the current political regime, helping nobody. We’re talking about a much bigger picture than just accessing information NOW.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Good call dpf. I agree with the vote vs freedom of information. If Google lose the battle and win the war is that making them do no evil? Once they have google entrenched in china they can start chipping at the walls on freedom of information. Pragmatism rather than
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
So how do all now feel about a Free Trade Agreement with China?
Is there any difference between Google’s position and ANYONE else doing business with that oppressive government?
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Maria, what makes Google special that they have to go on a one-company-crusade against China, when even our own governments won’t do it?
I agree it would be a moral course, but I don’t accept there is no value in the reduced Google whatsoever. This is not an either/or thing. You can have good with bad, that is all I am saying. You ARE an idealist to say that what has happened is all bad, and your insistence that the Chinese don’t get any Google until it’s on your terms is something it’s very easy to moralize about when it’s not you who has to do without it.
Logix, exactly. If you deal with the Chinese, you don’t get to call all the shots these days. They are mighty powerful. But I still believe they will reform from within, once they are rich and secure.
Vote:January 29th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
“I also take Russell’s point that the Chinese getting some Google is better than no Google at all.”
Can I make clear that I didn’t really say this myself: several Chinese-based posters to the Slashdot thread I was talking about said so, and I think the perspective of people actually there is worth considering.
I think that’s symptomatic of the fact that there’s no clean and tidy answer here.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
January 29th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
“and your insistence that the Chinese don’t get any Google until it’s on your terms is something it’s very easy to moralize about when it’s not you who has to do without it.”
But then again, most Chinese people I’ve spoken to here in NZ think that it would be a good idea to leave China sans-Google, because it would make the issue of government censorship extremely visible to a lot of people who might not have considered it seriously before now. What is not obvious from outside is that with the Chinese government controlling everything from the media to the education system a lot of Chinese people just plain aren’t aware their view of the world is so extensively filtered.
Their own government blocking Google would be quite hard to ignore on that front, no? If Google wants Chinese people to get at least some of the information then Google letting themselves get blocked would make a bigger difference than providing another soft-focus filtered view of the world to Chinese people who don’t even know they’re already seeing that way.
Vote:January 30th, 2006 at 12:33 am
Personally, I’m more concerned whether Google is going to be as staunch in defending the privacy of Google China search records as it has been in refusing to comply with a US Justice Department subpoena designed to track down child porn in recent weeks.
After all, if Beijing puts access to “the world’s largest market” at stake where – and when – does Google draw the line?
And with all due respect, Ben, I sincerely hope that a corporation that claims it’s corporate motto is “it’s possible to make money without doing evil” isn’t going to live down to the shameful record of diplomatic rim-jobbing of Beijing indulged in by successive New Zealand Governments for the sake of market access.
Now, I agree with RB that there isn’t a clean and tidy answer here. But I don’t think it’s one New Zealand can keep dodging for much longer.
Vote:January 30th, 2006 at 1:00 am
I’ve unbundled some thoughts here. I think the idea of assisting democratic change in China is a crap justification, among others.
But a question I didn’t address: what impact on the concept on market capitalism would Google’s refusal have had? Think about it: a meteoric dotcom like Google getting all principled on the market and turning its back on a shiteload of money?
Vote:January 30th, 2006 at 7:34 am
Perhaps, just perhaps our time horizon here is being too short. Consider the situation if in say 5 years time Google has established itself, as it has everywhere else, as the #1 search engine in the Chinese cyberspace.
Now who is wearing the boot?
Vote:January 30th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Craig, everyone who trades with China rimjobs them, and that is pretty much everyone.
I’d love to see a more open and democratic China, but I have been persuaded by many different freemarketeers on many occasions that trade with them is some form of integration, and could help soften their stance over time. And I still think it has some truth, so I’m not all broken up about yet another company falling to their silly rules.
I think the stripped down Google will still be blatantly obvious in it’s censorship to any Chinese who care. In fact, they will start to see exactly which terms it is that their government finds so offensive.
It’s a bit like not being allowed to buy a Gansta rap song, or being allowed to buy it with all the rude bits bleeped out. You usually know what they mean by Motherbleeper.
Vote:January 30th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Google’s motto became redundant with their IPO – a shareholder company with the motto “Do no evil” is like a military regiment with the motto “Do no harm”.
I think you’re wrong re the impact of Google censorship at the behest of the French and German govts, DPF. It set a precedent. No matter how Google wanted to phrase a refusal to act as censor for the Chinese govt after setting that precedent, what the Chinese would hear is “Yeah we’re OK about censoring on their behalf, but they’re white – Chinks however can fuck off.” Can’t see any shareholders being keen to send that message.
Vote:February 1st, 2006 at 9:24 am
Google v China – not so bad?
Google’s deal with the Chinese government that it will agree to censor some sites and terms has outraged many. Some people (DPF and Russell Brown for example) are rightly outraged at Google’s willingness to bow to a dictatorhip in pursuit of market s…
Vote: