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.

15 of 742 comments (clear)

  1. Sheer Hypocrisy by metlin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Okay, here's the thing.

    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:

    • Do no evil gets it good karma among the folks who think Google is a benign company
    • Open source serves its strategy well


    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.
    1. Re:Sheer Hypocrisy by thetejon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      How is obeying the laws of China when trying to do business in China "doing evil"? Personally, I'm opposed to censorship. But I'm also opposed to telling the Chinese government what to do, or advocating that Google break the country's laws just because the prevailing opinion in the US and most of the rest of the world is that the laws are wrong.

      How would you feel if a company came to do business in your country without following the rules? I understand that with an internet company, it's a little different. But still, I don't think it's fair to ask that Google lead the crusade to liberate China from oppressive censorship.

    2. Re:Sheer Hypocrisy by kebes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As has been pointed out many times on slashdot, Google had a tough choice to make. The options were:

      1. Provide no content/index in China.
      2. Provide a partial content/index in China.

      I, for one, consider this a worthy moral dilemma. It's by no means obvious to me that "provide nothing" is less evil than "provide partial." Part of me feels that they should have said "it's all or nothing!" as a moral stance, so as to "teach China a lesson." On the other hand, the people of China get screwed in this case: they don't get *any* content/index. That's not a great solution.

      What Google decided to do was provide a partial index, WITH A WARNING that the content had been censored. This obviously isn't as good as having full access, but at least they are trying to let people know what's going on (that they are complying with local law).

      Whether Google did this to "be good" or for money is irrelevant to the moral question. If I were running a free and non-profit search engine whose goal was "to bring the world's information to everyone, for free" I think I would end up making the same compromise as Google (and obviously for ethical, not monetary, reasons). Probably Google realized that this compromise made the best of a bad situation (in terms of both money and morals).

      So before you condemn Google for being evil, acknowledge that this is a difficult issue and that not everyone agrees with you that they made the wrong choice.

    3. Re:Sheer Hypocrisy by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "So you're saying they should just _lie_ to the Chinese government? Or perhaps shirk off and do a poor job of doing what they said they could do?"

      That's not what I'm saying at all. Have you ever tried to filter the Internet? It CAN'T be done effectively. There are companies with a helluva lot more experience with filtering than Google, many of which supply filtering systems to governments, fortune 500 companies, and educational systems, and they STILL can't do it. What makes you think that Google can do it any better when it's not the core of their business?

      Google will filter to the specifications that the People's Republic of China gives them. That's complying with the law, and it's not lying. I don't doubt that Google will also report things that slip through as they're found. This still doesn't mean that they'll keep everything out.

      Remember, the more data that has to be sifted through, the harder and more computer-intensive it is to do it. Maybe enough general traffic and China's filtering won't be able to function anyway, and this will only serve to ramp up the traffic.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re:Sheer Hypocrisy by LordNimon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Did it occur to you that maybe they'll do more Good by being a western influence in China than by not being there at all?

      Yes, it did occur to me to think about that. A millisecond later, though, I realized that it's not true. All Google has done is to further the Chinese government's belief that they can censor the Internet from their citizens. After all, look at all these American companies that are willing to help the Chinese government oppress its people!

      Sorry Google, but I no longer believe the "Do No Evil" story.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    5. Re:Sheer Hypocrisy by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And ignoring China altogether helps?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  2. Another Article by gowen · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  3. not hypocrisy in the least by rsw · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Everyone who is now crying that "Google is being evil" is looking at this from a flawed perspective.

    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.

    1. Google refuses to abide by Chinese law and is not allowed to operate at all.
    2. Google abides by the law by censoring results, and is allowed to operate, albeit on a limited basis, in China.


    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
  4. Re:Whose "evil"? by hal2814 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:Whose "evil"? by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Hypocracy apparent: google.com vs google.cn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    For those idiots who say that censored information is better than no information; consider these two views of history from Google.COM vs Google.CN.


    The censorship completely changes history.
    1. Re:Hypocracy apparent: google.com vs google.cn by benjjj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      a more telling example is a search for "falun gong" on each google site. the one's at .cn are clearly anti-FG propaganda, while .com results mostly document chinese gov abuses of FG practitioners. in this cases, it looks like google isn't simply censoring search results, it's helping the chinese gov't to spread propaganda.

  7. Google might be hypocrite, but you, Sir, are snob by aralin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    You simply look at your own agenda and do not look at it from the perspective of the people in China. I used to live in a totalitarian regime for the first half of my life and know the effects of government censorship. I have to tell you that if I should choose whether to have google with censorship or not have it at all, its clear what I would choose. I would indeed perceive it as a great evil if Google would withdraw their services from me because of someone's quite stupid elitist opinion.

    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.
  8. Google should publish the filter list by mcguirez · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  9. Let ye who cast the first stone.. by sboyko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?