January 26, 2006
SFist Tech Labs: Google China and Spin Control
We've been using our research time to ruminate on the growing importance of public perception of technology companies. As the most closely-watched technology company in the Bay Area, Google is getting criticism for supposedly not living up to its philosophy of "You can make money without doing evil".
The issue now is Google's decision to censor search results on its Chinese site. In an interview with Reuters (vectored via CNet news.com), Sergey Brin acknowledges that the decision will be criticized, but "eventually I came to the conclusion that more information is better, even if it is not as full as we would like to see."
Anders Bylund of Ars Technica.com compares the decision to Google's earlier rejection of the US Department of Justice's subpoena for search records, calling out the "hypocrisy" of standing up to one government but caving to another. The difference here, according to critics, is that China is a great untapped market, and playing nice with the Chinese government will yield a higher profit for the company than would caving to the DoJ.
We're taking Google's side on this one. Chinese users are already restricted by their government's firewall. Opening a dedicated site in China, even one that acquiesces to the government's demands, guarantees access to some information and keeps users from having to do all their searches on the down-low. Refusing to open the site because "Information Wants To Be Free!" does nothing for the Chinese.
People like to paint a picture of the company as Champions of Truth and Defenders of the Common Man, when the reality is a lot more practical: it's a business, one that exists to make money and give people access to information. It turns out that the two aren't always mutually exclusive, and the company ends up doing good more often than not.
Google's not the superhero who's going to fly into China and stick it to the Red Menace. It's just a company that has made billions and billions of dollars by doing things well and looking out for its customers. And that's even more impressive.
Photo of the Chinese Golden Dragon Acrobats from their promotional site at Art Fegan Entertainment, taken by photographer Loli Kantor
|
We're taking Google's side on this one. Chinese users are already restricted by their government's firewall. Opening a dedicated site in China, even one that acquiesces to the government's demands, guarantees access to some information and keeps users from having to do all their searches on the down-low.
Since the only information Chinese users are going to be finding on google.cn will be "legal" - why would any alternate searching be on the "down-low"? This argument doesn't make sense.
The article neglects to mention Google's oft-repeated credo of "Do No Evil". By doing business with a government that overtly enforces censorship and tyranny against its citizens, they are hypocritically breaking this rule. Google's actions here seem to be strictly profit based with their intention of being ethical conveniently tossed aside.
Since the only information Chinese users are going to be finding on google.cn will be "legal" - why would any alternate searching be on the "down-low"? This argument doesn't make sense.
That was my paraphrase of Brin's quote from the Reuters/CNet article:
Barring a massive change in government, Chinese people are going to have limited access to information. Whether or not Google opens a Chinese-specific version of their site, that isn't going to change.
The best they would get from refusing to open the site is that they get to make a political statement and have people cheering them on for being noble. It's corporate spin control that does nothing for the people who'd be able to benefit from the service. That seems to be a lot more cynical and self-serving than being criticized for being "profit-based," because it makes Google look good, it makes westerners happy with themselves for Defending Democracy, and it leaves the Chinese customers screwed.
By "down-low" I was referring to the fact that at least this way, Google will be aware of what's getting censored from its users, and will be able to acknowledge that result on its search result pages. As the Ars Technica article points out, that's exactly what you get in the US when you search for kazaa.
The article neglects to mention Google's oft-repeated credo of "Do No Evil". By doing business with a government that overtly enforces censorship and tyranny against its citizens, they are hypocritically breaking this rule. Google's actions here seem to be strictly profit based with their intention of being ethical conveniently tossed aside.
Well, you're right except for the part where I mentioned it in the opening paragraph. At least, as it's presented on Google's own website, where it quite transparently says "You can make money without doing evil." It's a business. It doesn't try to disguise that fact. It's clear about its philosophy, it's clear about its search results.
And I don't read anything in Brin's interview that suggests it's "conveniently tossed aside." He's unhappy with the decision, but thinks it's the best that one company can reasonably do. I agree. That's not pro-tyranny, it's pro-reason. If anyone can overturn the oppression of the Chinese people, it's not going to be an internet search site.
Google has voiced its opposition to the policy, so it's already made its statement. Now, on top of that, it's doing what it's supposed to do as a business: provide a service to people. If it's "evil" to make a profit out of what you do as a business, then it's evil in America and France and Germany as much as it is in China.
I respectfully disagree with your position. From the getgo, Google has forced it's slogan of "do no evil" down our throats as a reason to use their services over their competitors. They used it as a gimmick to distinguish their company from all of the larger, "more evil" companies. They said that they were different, and that their moral standards were higher than everyone else's.
We hold them to this higher standard because they ASKED us to do so. And now we're supposed to roll over and pretend like this decision doesn't fly in the face of everything that they said they stood for? That they didn't have a choice in the matter because of the lucrative financial gains? That they couldn't just make the decision to oppose the restrictive Chinese government, even if it meant that their bottom line would take a hit?
I don't think so. Give us a little more credit than that. They made their evil bed, and now they can sleep in it.