Slashdot Mirror
Google's Action Makes A Mockery Of Its Values
Jason Jardine linked us to a well written piece discussing how Google has thus far promised to Do No Evil, but their recent decisions regarding censorship in china
make a mockery of those values. We've been following this story all along, but I thought this article makes good food for thought.
Had it been any other company, I would not have cared. But the point is, if you are a company that says "Do No Evil" and use that as a corporate strategy to try and earn good karma, you'd better hold on to it.
Did Microsoft say that they would do no evil? No, they did not.
On the other hand, Google tries to project the image of being Oh-so-Good and is being hypocritical about it.
If you are going to have a corporate value, stick to the bloody thing. Else don't flaunt it or be selective in its use.
This is what made me lose respect for Google - the fact that their so-called-values disappear at the first sign of money. Bah, what's the point then?
Google uses its values for no reason other than for purely strategy purposes:
Of course, most folks don't realize that like every other company, the moment money comes into picture, all values go out of the window.
Do no evil, my ass. They're worse than companies which do evil, because they don't preach something and practice hypocrisy.
Sheesh, shameless folks.
When they sold the stock their creed changed from "Do no evil" to "Do no evil to our stockholders".
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
There's an excellent article or two discussing Google past, present and future in today's Guardian, as well. The second one is the better.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I'm sorry I don't see what is wrong with obeying the laws of a country in which you do business. Would a European company be evil if it sold non-lead-free electronics in the US? No, it wouldn't... even though they would be breaking the law to sell the same thing in Europe (look up RoHS compliance). Freedom of speech is not the same thing as torture; I think it is indeed up to a country to decide for itself what level of speech can be tolerated (even in the US, there are a lot of things you can't say).
If Google promoted censorship in the US, then I would be unhappy. However I'm not going to fault them for playing by the rules wherever they operate.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
If it were the case that Google had leverage with the Chinese government, and if they could use that leverage to eradicate censorship in China, then perhaps the arguments of hypocrisy would hold water. This, however, is not the case.
The simple fact is, with or without Google operating in China, censorship there will continue to exist. If we assume that this is the case, and further that Google can only operate in China if they agree to abide by the laws in China (regardless of what we think of those laws), then there are only two possible scenarios.
Unless you can make the argument (and, in my estimation, it is an incoherent one) that somehow Google sans censorship is a net positive value to the Chinese citizenry, but censored Google is a net negative value, you must necessarily conclude that some access to Google is better than none.
Fundamentally, the censorship is China's fault, not Google's. They're doing their best to ensure that they give as much access as they can to the people in China.
-rsw
By saying we should judge Chinas values according to their own culture, you are promoting ethical relativism. Should we judge slavery as OK because it was part of the culture of the south 150 years ago? Saying that what google is doing is ok because of chinas values are different then our own is not a valid ethical argument.
Yeah just because the Chinese government kills a few protesters and then covers it up with the help of Google doesn't mean they're doing something evil in their culture. What they did wasn't even illegal. Get a grip, people.
Are they "wrong"? What makes ours "right"?
Interesting question. Why don't you do some research on various philosophical outlooks, and get back to us on that. While you're looking for information to make your decision, ask yourself what you'd do if you were unable to find the information you need in order to make your decision. How would you feel if you knew that information existed but you're not permitted to see it. Not because the owner of the information set a price for it that you couldn't afford, not because you didn't know where it was, but simply because someone else said so.
Killing people may or may not be evil. Putting them in small cells for the rest of their life may or may not be evil. Telling them that they are permitted to only have one child may or may not be evil. But denying people access to information so that they can make reasoned and informed decisions, what is that, if not evil?
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
I completely disagree with the sentiment that Google is 'being evil' by agreeing to censor search results in accordance with Chinese law. Google's job is not to legislate or protest political issues. Their job is to provide search results to those who need them.
It seems to me that, without google, the largest population of human beings in the world would be missing out on some of the best parts of the internet. Granted, many of those parts will be censored, but we all know censorship isn't ever going to be 100% effective, anyway.
What China needs is information. The more information we can get piped into Chinese cultural consciousness, the sooner their society will be able to emerge from this dark cloud. The internet is exactly the tool to provide that information, and if google is able to deliver it better than anyone else, then I say more power to them. I think it's obvious that our government hasn't had much luck in changing the Chinese government by scolding them or leveraging political and economic sanctions. Having said that, it seems pretty obvious to me that we should consider a different approach. From my perspective, that's exactly what google is doing. There's an old saying:
You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
The censorship completely changes history.
Every time people have access to more information, even though it might be censored, its always good in the end. And once people get more used to access to ready information, they will eventually demand access to all information. Google even censored, will have a huge positive social impact in China.
And last, but not least. Even though I live for half of my life in a totalitarian regime, I have never met with so much propaganda, misinformation and people willing to gobble it up and eat the shit from the hand of their government, until I moved to United States. The difference is staggering. I actually feel the people in United States are more controlled, watched and led by hand by their government than the people of my country were during a communist totalitarian regime. So in the end from my point of view, the only hypocrite here are you, Sir.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
Hold up to public scrutiny what China wants to hide.
Publish the blocked list.
While this doesn't solve the problem of Google pandering to the Chinese regime, it can demonstrate to the rest of the world exactly what China is afraid will unbalance it's leaderships power. Raising the visibility of banned authors and topics will help undermine their attempt to limit knowledge.
When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras
For all those people who claim that Google has suddenly gone over to the dark side.. check the labels on your shirts. Check who made your kid's toy. Your new appliance. China?
The truth of the matter is that everyone deals with people or organizations that may not hold the same ideals as they do. Witness the fact that the U.S. government, which has stated it wants democracy everywhere, deals with countries such as Saudi Arabia that do not have a democratic system.
I submit to you that the more interaction there is with a non-democratic state, the more likely democracy will flow to the non-democratic state. As someone else said, information is the key. Even with Google's self-imposed censorship, things will get through and it can only be good.
SCO, Microsoft, P2P, what's your hot button?
Okay, you have two choices to make as a corporation:
1.) I can sensor some of my product in a country.
2.) I can not have my product in the country.
Tell me, under the guiding idea of "Do No Evil" or rather "Don't Be Evil," which is not evil?
With option 1, I have some ability to do good.
Under option 2, I have no ability to do good.
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
Google states that "while removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission." Assuming that Google's only alternative was to refuse to censor their results, and hence be completely filtered by the Great Firewall, I would argue that that option would have been more consistent with their mission than their chosen path.
/. in a comment on one of the other articles about Google's recent decision that one problem that international businesses, particularly media, face in dealing with China is that they all deal individually with the Chinese government, and hence have little to no leverage. The Chinese government needs multinationals right now as much as, or more than, multinationals need China, but China needs them in aggregate rather than individually, so can take a divide-and-conquer approach at regulating them. What is needed is an industry organization, formal or informal, dedicated to upholding freedom of the press, to which all media companies operating in China can belong, a support network that mutually resists the pressure by the Chinese government on any one company to censor information. Google refusing to censor its results could have been a step in that direction, and if any company has the clout to the lead the formation of such an organization, it's Google.
The absence of the world's largest, most popular search engine inside the Chinese firewall would have been as glaringly obvious as a pink elephant. The Chinese people aren't idiots, they know their government censors information, and they would know why Google had suddenly been blocked by the firewall. Word would get out, through the grapevine and other unofficial channels, and it might even constitute an embarrassing loss of face for the Communist party. Of course, the Chinese would much prefer that Baidu, Sino, or one of their own home-grown search engines be the #1 search engine, but they would still know that the only truly reliable search engine, the one that refuses to censor their information, was Google, and had been blocked by their government. Unlike Americans, the Chinese have long memories, and such an association would pay off in PR and face for Google in the long term.
Google on the other hand might take a stock price hit, but no investor could say they were't warned that Google might make decisions based on long-term considerations rather than short term stock-price-propping, or that Google's corporate values might sometimes conflict with the best interests of their stock price. However, such a move would certainly solidify the image of Google as a singular organization with the most honest and accurate search results worldwide, truly dedicated to its mission of organizing all the world's information.
Furthermore, Google's refusal to cooperate with the Chinese Government might have opened the door for other search engines, media, and businesses to follow suit, and emboldened the Chinese people and businesses to demand more unfettered access to information and less government interference. Someone mentioned on
So this appears to be an unfortunately wasted opportunity, for Google to make a strong political statement based on its values, that might have hurt it in the short term but most likely have paid off in PR and face in the long-term.
Google, we expected better.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams