Slashdot Mirror
Google Admits Compromising Principles in China
muellerr1 writes "Google co-founder Sergey Brin admitted that it had adopted 'a set of rules that we weren't comfortable with' in their Chinese activities. Though it doesn't yet sound like they're admitting to actually doing evil, it does appear that they are thinking about pulling out of China rather than compromise their 'do no evil' motto."
The China censorship issue was a very difficult decision and, no matter how you look at it, they chose the less moral option... If they truly follow up and reverse their policy on China I will have to cease my usual cynicism and admit that Google may truly be a _moral_ company!
Go Brin! Go Google!
it is questionable whether Google could afford to turn its back on China's explosive economy
You know that if you were running Google, you wouldn't have turned your back to China. Google did no evil here.
Speaking in Washington, Sergey Brin, Google's billionaire co-founder, said the company, which operates under the motto "do no evil", had adopted "a set of rules that we weren't comfortable with".
In a hint that Google could adjust its stance in China in the future, he added: "Perhaps now [emphasis mine] the principled approach makes more sense."
So what took you so long Sergey? Why now? Why couldn't you see this was a bad idea from the start? Talk about coming to the party late!
Just how much back-pedalling Google does now should be interesting, as this is no doubt going to cause revenue problems in the long run and a bit of a publicity flap in the short run, though if Google decides to finally stand on its principles and other companies like Microsoft and Yahoo don't follow along, it should regain a lot of standing in many people's eyes. Well, except for the Chinese government's anyway...
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
I certainly hope that other companies, particularly Yahoo, which has been implicated in providing information to Chinese authorities leading to the arrest of political dissidents, will feel pressured by Google's recent announcement to be more candid about their own policies regarding operations in China. If our big Internet players were to stand up for what is right, it'd be a powerful statement for human rights.
If Google stay in China, people call them evil hypocrits, pandering to a brutal government. If Google leaves, people call them stubborn information whores. Either way, the people of China are the ones that lose. Between the two, I think that the "some censored iformation is better than no information". While they can't learn about tank boy, perhaps they can learn other useful information (encryption, bomb making, etc.)
As much as we like to make fun of America, at least we don't have to worry about [severe] state sanctioned censorship [yet].
When Google entered China, they agreed to censor their search engine. Perhaps that could be an acceptable thing to do if they were asked to censor child pornography sites, but it really does depend on what they are being asked to censor.
The Chinese government was asking them to cover up a government massacre of hundreds, possibly thousands, of people. To do such a thing is extremely disrespectful to those that were killed in this massacre.
Google claim that they want to give people the information they're looking for, but in China, they're withholding the truth about what happened on June 4, 1989. Hundreds of innocent people murdered. You can't assist in the cover-up of something like that and claim that your integrity hasn't been compromised.
The more breathing room we give them as a company, and the less people target them, focusing law suits related to searching, with the only reason they sue google being they are the most recognizable, then the less likely they are to become "evil". We sue them into the ground, then it becomes news when they turtle?
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
Did you RTFA? All he says is he can see why someone else would come to a different conclusion than they did. And it's not like Google pulling out is going to do a shit. You think making a search engine is something special? If Google pulls out, they'll just use some other censored search engine like Baidu. If eBay pulls out, they'll just use another online auction site. No matter what any corporation does, it won't have a damn effect on the grand scale in China. There is enough technical expertise there already to do anything an American company would--perhaps inferior, but none of these things (search engines, auction sites, portals, etc...) are rocket science. Pulling American corporations out of China (to be replaced by native corporations) would only lessen our fucking leverage in China. Think about it.
The middle class (the people in China that can actually USE the internet) there is growing and prosperous. By and large, they're damn happy with the ways things have gone since 1989. (If you don't believe so, I invite you to visit any modern Chinese city and look at its amazing rate of development.) If there's going to be any revolt, it'll probably be from the countryside...from the people who don't have internet access anyway.
Is it "Do no Evil" or "Don't be evil" ?
I've heard both attributed to the Google motto, but they are very different imperatives.
There are moral models in which a good person might have to do an evil for some greater good. (Work with China for the purpose of engagement)
It would also be possible to produce horrible effect without ever commiting any identifiable evil act. (We are just following the local laws.)
imho, it will turn out to be a good thing in the end. google can't censor all of its content. it, to me, is better for the people of china to have access to SOME information through google getting their foot in the door instead of the people of china having access to NO information because google decided to let the door close. perhaps it is motivated by money, perhaps it isn't. either way, in the long run, it might be better.
Before 1994, South Africa held the title of "most hated nation". Nations who persisted in trading with South Africa said that not to do so would disadvantage the poorest, mainly black, South Africans. Other nations ranted against South Africa whilst perpetrating their own heinous abuses of human rights.
..... where do they think the components for those boards are made?
Anyway, Google run their server farms on cheap motherboards
The unpleasant truth is that it's damned nigh impossible to avoid doing business with China one way or another. And if you do manage to avoid China, then you will end up paying over the odds for everything you buy, and be unable to compete in the marketplace.
Write to your Elected Representatives and ask them why we are allowed to import goods which have been manufactured under conditions which would not be acceptable in the destination country? It's all very well for countries such as Britain and the USA to have environmental, consumer protection and workers' rights laws; but when imported goods sidestep those laws, locally-produced goods become uncompetitive and the benefits that should have brought by those laws are lost. Something's got to be wrong when it's cheaper to fly a plane halfway round the world and back than to treat your workers like human beings.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
If Google is not evil and China is, then it's just logical that they'd pull out. We wouldn't want a rift in the space-time continuum now, would we?
I don't know about that.
The thing is, uncomfortable engagement can be more effective than complete, self-satisfied and puritanical shunning. There's no end to what people will do to push back against those who shun them. In fact it becomes a useful explanation for every failure: the bad guys are out to get us. Think Castro.
Most of the time advocates of "constructive engagement" are just hypocrites who want to pay lip service to right and wrong. Google is not like that, I think, but it puts them in a sticky position. Some will fight them on moral grounds. Others will waffle in between. It's a messy and uncomfortable situation, whereas boycott is very clean and simple. The good thing about it is that it has the effect of making the party in question deal with the messiness, to explain and justify itself over and over. They'll spin, adjust, tweak and struggle to find some kind of comprimse that will square the circle. It's never enough to make them decide to take their ball and go home, but it never ends either. It'll be a continual embarassment. When the elite travel overseas, there'll always be a moment of uncomfortable silence when they talk to somebody while that person tries to figure out a way to navigate around the proverbial elephant in the room. Eventually, they may just decide it's eaasier to change than to put up with it. Think South Africa.
So, what I'm saying is it's a good thing that Google is involved with China, although it is not necessarily "good" in a moral sense. And at the same time it's also a good thing that China and Google are getting a PR hiding by people. If Google is forced out, let's hope it's after a long struggle. Then China and the paladins of human rights can start struggling over choice #2. Then #3, #4 etc.
It's an unappealing situation for the people involved, because it's messy. But messy is sometimes good. Keep it very nearly unbearably messy, but not quite. That's the ticket. Turn it into a tub of pig shit with a pot of gold at the bottom. Sooner or later they'll decide to quick trying to fish the pot out with a stick and muck out the shit.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
BBC Reports: China 'blocks' main Google sitet m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5055170.s
I wonder if this has anything to do with Brins comment..
Google could also make a lot of money selling illegal drugs. So it would be in the shareholders interests for them to start doing so. Therefore, they are required by law to do it.
I try not to get all of my rules of living from science fiction books, but I think _The Diamond Age_ (Stephenson) made a good point when it took the stand that hipocrisy is not the worst of all sins. The point was that taking a stand and failing to live up to it is better than not taking a stand at all.
Obviously, this requires constant examination. Someone who continues to expouse a principal yet do something else (c.f. Republican congress and fiscal responsibility) needs to be called out on their actions, but I'm willing to give Google a little bit of leeway... this time.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Maybe they're looking for an exit strategy that doesn't include admitting they lost in the China search engine market...
Nice try though. Plus, it could be argued that the wording in your linked page was on their American website, while the censoring occurs on their Chinese webpage. Then, as a previous poster stated, right on the Google.cn results page, it lets you know if there are any results that have been censored.
i ew/
What are you talking about? Google.cn censors without notifying users that content is being removed. For example...
Here's a Google.com search for "tiananmen"
http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen
Here's a Google.cn search for "tiananmen"
http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen
creepy huh?
Frontline did a piece about this a few months ago. It was called "The Tank Man" and it's viewable online.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/v
Watch part 6, "The struggle to control information." A journalist hands a picture of the tank man to several Chinese university students, and they have -no- idea what the picture is about. That's crazy.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
My understanding of their moral 'compromise' was that they would provide the censored search, but to put the disclaimer on the bottom of each page stating (not in so many words): "your government forced us to censor the search results they don't want you talking about." The rationalization was the continued presense of the warning would make the censorship feel like a burr under the saddle. A frequent little reminder that those in power are truly oppressing them.
Of course, as with any compromise, external people saw the decision in whichever light reflected their own viewpoint. Most people who were paying attention saw it as a horrible move supporting a violently oppresive regime. Others, perhaps those who are tolerant of more limited forms of censorship (such as the suppresion of nazi imagery or propaganda in Germany) saw it as an ethical compromise by Google. Businesspeople who wanted to advertise in the rapidly expanding Chinese markets saw it as a wise move, enabling them to pitch their wares more effectively. Finally, the vast majority of people outside of China don't much care what happens inside China -- they're too busy worrying about their own problems (or the ones their own government invents to terrify them into submission.)
Sure, there are dollars (or yuan) to consider, too. They have to answer to stockholders, after all. But "don't be evil" is a big part of who they are, and it doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room for things like "mostly don't be evil."
John
I think you got your rants confused with Nike or someother company than Google. All Google did was try to provide their search and other internet services in China and ran in to the fact that China places some draconian restrictions on them. After living with them for a while they did the right thing in their view and are pulling out.
... unless of course they do something stupid in the process and tank the company wiping out the shareholders investment and the employees jobs.
STOP BITCHING WHEN THEY DID THE RIGHT THING.
"A company that supports censorship in other nations, while enjoying freedom in it's own is totally unacceptable."
Hate to break it to you but nearly every country censors, the only issue is the degree and what. China is certainly on the high end of the scale. You can for example not say a LOT of words or show a lot of things on American media without getting fined or eventually driven off the air. The fines are in the process of being increased from something like $30K to $300K per incident. Pornography is heavily censored in many countries and standards vary widely. Are you saying a company that aids in censorship of pornography or obscene words from children is doing something morally and ethically reprehensible or are they being ethically responsible? Some European countries have some truly draconian censorship of anything relating to Fascism and Nazism. By your standard any company condoning this is detestable.
"A company that exploits forced prison labor camps in China"
You did know U.S. companies use U.S. prison labor didn't you? Microsoft used to or probably still does package some of its products using prison labor at the Twin Rivers Correctional Facility in Washington. Couple this with the fact the U.S. has one of the highest per capita prison populations in the world and your holier than thou pitch doesn't fly.
"Contracting with company to produce your product that pays young men and women an amount of money that is not very much, even in their poor country"
So you are proposing it would be be better if those men and women have no work at all? Sure it would be nice if they got a living wage but what that is tends to vary with each person's opinion and government mandated minimum wages have problems in their own right. If you put a minimum wage in one place and some other place doesn't then unfortunately, in a globalized world, a lot of jobs will migrate to where that cheapest labor is. It is an unfortunate fact of life when you live under Capitalism and in a semi free world.
Yes low wages jobs suck but it kind of follows that if those people are working there of their own volition those jobs are probably better than the other jobs available to them. Its kind of easy to rant sitting in some affluent country without appreciating that if you got your wish and those jobs disappeared then those people would be worse off than they are now.
"A company is not an soulless entity that has no responsibility to humanity."
Actually yes it is whether you like it or not. If the executives and board decide its in their interest andtheir shareholders interest to behave ethically and morally then great
If the executive and board opt to behave in a manner you don't consider ethical then its your prerogative to not buy their products or start a crusade against them or get a law passed against whatever they are doing.
It isn't your right or prerogative to demand that everyone adhere to your ethical standards. Companies really only need to operate within the laws in the countries where they operate. If a country doesn't have a minimum wage and its employees are starving that is probably ultimately an issue for the country to solve through its governmental process.
@de_machina