Google Shareholders Reject Censorship Proposal

prostoalex writes "At the annual shareholder meeting, Google put forth for voting a proposal for the company not to engage in self-censorship, resist by all legal means the demands to censor information, inform the user in case their information was provided to the government, and generally not to store sensitive user data in the countries with below average free speech policies. As this proposal, if passed, would effectively mean the end of Google's China operations, the shareholders rejected the document at the recommendation of the Board of Directors."

Comments

And there you have it

[Deathbane27]

Google lost the ability to "do no evil" the minute they became a publicly traded company.

Re:And there you have it

[matt4077]

You might want to consider that this was actually proposed by one of their shareholders. That's a nice answer to all those "if a company forgoes profit for doing good, it's a crime against capitalism and shareholders" comments I regularly see on slashdot. However, this isn't really "doing evil" but rather "not committing do doing good". Google is still free to implement these measures, they are just not forced to do it. From a management perspective, it leaves more options on the table.

Re:And there you have it

[MrNaz]

Of course, you are aware that there's a difference between a public company and a public trust. Aren't you?

Re:And there you have it

[erroneous]

"Do No Evil" for Google now means saying "we don't like doing this" but then doing it anyway.

Re:And there you have it

[morgan_greywolf]

You might want to consider that this was actually proposed by one of their shareholders

Yeah. A small pension fund with a very few shares. They hardly represent the majority.

That's a nice answer to all those "if a company forgoes profit for doing good, it's a crime against capitalism and shareholders" comments I regularly see on slashdot.

Hmph. I usually see the opposite, but ...

However, this isn't really "doing evil" but rather "not committing do doing good". Google is still free to implement these measures, they are just not forced to do it. From a management perspective, it leaves more options on the table.

But Google won't implement these measures and we all know that. The bottom line is that China is too big a market for Google to ignore. Everyone has to remember that Google is nobody's hero. That's not the reason they exist -- they exist to make money. They reward creativity at Google because ultimately it's profitable to do so. They try to make themselves look less evil than other big companies (AOL, Microsoft, etc.) because they it's profitable to do so. I'm not saying that Google didn't start with admirable goals, but today they are a publicly-traded company and their raison d'etre is to create value for their shareholders. So everyone needs to stop putting companies -- particular Apple and Google -- on a pedestal and realize that your relationship with them as a consumer should be if you like their products, use them, if not, go elsewhere.

Re:And there you have it

[drgonzo59]

You might want to consider that this was actually proposed by one of their shareholder

But you missed the point, in the end it didn't happen!. It is like Serghey saying that making a deal with China wasn't very nice, but they still kept the deal. Don't you see this is all a publicity stunt. The whole "do no evil" might have worked when Goolge was just 10 people in a garage. But tt doesn't apply anymore.

Yes, there might have been one altruistic shareholder, but it was 1 againts what? 1000? You might as well ignore that one individual as a statistical 'fluke'.

One of my friends invests in a consumer products company that does animal research. Many rabbits and hamsters are maimed, disfigured and practically tortured, to figure out if the products are "safe". My friend is against animal research (I am not, though), but yet he will not sell his stock in that company. Unfortunately, as sad as it is, $$$$ does make the world go round.

No matter what moral slogans you hear from "Google" or other companies, they only serve one purpose -- to imporove the public image -- to make more $$$$$. When it comes to "make more $$$" vs. "adhering to a moral principle", then "make more $$$$" wins.

The way I see it, a good test of moral character for a company (and for a person, for that matter) is if they would be willing to stand by their moral convictions at the expense of a significant loss in profit. Google has failed to do that...

Re:And there you have it

[simm1701]

Or you could take the more cynical view that they did the IPO so spread the blame for no longer following that motto.

"Sorry its not us, its our shareholders"

Retaining control themselves leaves them an easy target for the media if they go against their stated aims, spread out and run by votes its out of their hands.

Re:And there you have it

[mgoren]

Google is still free to implement these measures, they are just not forced to do it. From a management perspective, it leaves more options on the table.

I don't know much about the politics of public companies, but it seems to me that if Google goes ahead with a policy that was specifically voted down by shareholders, then the shareholders are likely to accuse them of not fulfilling their responsibility. Regardless, Google's Board of Directors opposed the proposal, so it doesn't seem likely they'd try to implement it anyways.

On the upside though, the fact that shareholders effectively voted for censorship sounds pretty bad... If a lot of people hear about that it could continue to put pressure on the company to pass a similar proposal in the future.

Re:And there you have it

[drgonzo59]

GOOGLE: "Do No Evil. Ever!" *(see note below).

...

*NOTE: Except when in conflict with making more money. Otherwise, yeah...whatever, we'll do no evil...

Re:And there you have it

[aussie_a]

No, but then I tend to think of businessmen as immoral. I wouldn't expect a rapist to turn him/herself in either.

Re:And there you have it

[aussie_a]

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. So either Google is evil or they're aiding and abetting evil. Yes, this was tongue in cheek, but I've seen the distinction "google isn't doing evil, they're just not doing good" to be rather silly myself.

Re:And there you have it

[maxume]

Google prior to being publicly traded likely would have behaved exactly the same. Larry, Sergei and Eric own enough class B shares between them to decide each and every shareholder vote.

Re:And there you have it

[MikeyTheK]

To be fair, much of any company's stock is owned by mutual funds and other investment vehicles. As a result, many of the votes come from parties that hold large blocks but are more interested in ROI more than anything else. So it's frequently hard to get much of anything passed by "shareholders" since many "shareholders" aren't individuals.

That being said, as a shareholder I voted for the proposal.

Do any other shareholders remember if Google's BOD recommended voting FOR or AGAINST the proposal? I think I vaguely remember them recommending voting AGAINST, but I don't remember for sure.

Re:And there you have it

[drgonzo59]

Exactly. It was our mistake to regard Google as some kind of entity with 'feelings' and moral convictions. In reality corporations are dumb money making machines (as far as their goal state is concerned). They always try to maximize the "make more $$$" function. If that means saying "do no evil" -- alright. If it means putting someone in jail over the censorship -- sure!. If there is a conflict between "making more $" and "do no evil" the issue gets sent to the PR and finance department that calculates risks associated with each and picks the choice that would ... surprise... makes more $$$!

Re:And there you have it

[bill_kress]

I really despise it when people talk that way about Google's policy to try to avoid being "Evil". It seems like the act of Google creating a policy designed to remind their employees that it is important to avoid doing things that hurt others or society causes them to be a target for some people.

It's not like they mean "We never do any evil", what they are doing is telling their employees "Please do no evil". HUGE difference. The only thing I can imagine is that some people see it as the former--them declaring to the world that they are better than all other companies.

To see people constantly bring up such a goal as a negative makes me ill.

That said, I have to agree with the parent. Publicly traded companies have a tendency to move towards "Evil" with every stockholder decision. The entire free-market system moves thousands of entities just a little bit closer to the darkside with every vote.

Re:And there you have it

[jhoger]

At the end of the day a corporation's primary responsibility is to create shareholder value.

But it is tempting (easy) to take far too simplistic a view of that.

Take environmental policy, for example. The simplistic "bottom line" thinking is screw the environment. But it is short term, will upset many stakeholders, and eventually, the government will come in and regulate. All those are serious consequences that will affect shareholder value. Where is the balance point?

I think one of Google's selling points is its "Do No Evil" motto, and how they have lived up to it so far. If they lose that corporate image and corporate culture, it is a marketing failure for Google in my book.

-- John.

Censored post

[Timesprout]

This post has been censored by Slashdot for crimes against groupthink but is available for viewing in the google cache.

It's all about rights

[WrongSizeGlass]

The right to profit trumps the rights of others to live without government oppression or intervention.

anti?

[gadzook33]

Shouldn't the title read anti-censorship proposal?

Oh well.

[tygerstripes]

So, as common sense would suggest Doing No Evil can be a vague condition of employment, not of share ownership.

Maybe it was the employees who tipped the vote, thereby exercising their latent evilness in the only free arena they have - stock options!

PR

[McGiraf]

Nice PR stunt.

Boycott isn't necessarily best

[tomhath]

There are plenty of good ways to resist censorship and try to bring about change. Refusing to do business in the country is one way, but working within the system is probably more effective. I don't see that Google is wrong here; some other company more willing to go along with the government would take their place if they pull out.

Re:Screw the Chinese

[mwissel]

They simply don't miss something they never had. The vast majority of chinese people living in poverty simply won't get to know anything else but the status quo. The Chinese who have the money and influence to change something are satisfied enough with what they have, and don't want risk a live in jail or exil I guess..

Not only China

[Anonymous Coward]

It would also effectively mean pulling out of France and Germany. And now, if we consider a governmental censorship done through the hands of private corporations to be governmental censorship anyway, they should pull out of the United States, too - what was the name of the American journalist fired for ideologically incorrect depiction of the recent Iraqi war? I don't even bother to mention Russia here.

Censorship is evil, but it is an inevitable evil. A government that doesn't control the media in its country loses control of the masses to those who does; that's why there is and will always be censorship in all countries, installed either by the local government or by the United States, which seem to have bought lots of media in countries weak and small.

Headline seems totally wrong

[jez9999]

Surely 'Google's shareholders have rejected a NON-censorship proposal'?

I don't get it.

[Otis2222222]

From TFA:

"Pulling out of China, shutting down Google.cn, is just not the right thing to do at this point," he said. "But that's exactly what this proposal would do."

Am I just naive in thinking that this proposal would have no effect on their Chinese operations? Let's say the Chinese government says "hey Google, play ball" and they say "no". What can the Chinese government do exactly? I'd just like to see a company, any company that has some pull, say "what are you going to do about it?" to the Chinese. Only when people doing business grow a backbone will things change and others follow suit. But this could just be wishful thinking. I just think it would be cool if someone actually stood up to them.

Re:I don't get it.

[flooey]

Am I just naive in thinking that this proposal would have no effect on their Chinese operations? Let's say the Chinese government says "hey Google, play ball" and they say "no". What can the Chinese government do exactly?

First, they can revoke the google.cn name. Country code names are subject to the regulation of the country they're associated with.

Next, they can eliminate all of Google's operations in China. Google has employees and datacenters in China that are completely subject to Chinese law and can be shut down by order of the government.

Third, they can block resolution of google.com and any other Google-related name around the world. This already happens periodically to google.com, that's why they have google.cn, but they could do it completely.

Countries are more than able to control what does and doesn't go on within their borders. China could easily make Google completely inaccessible to its residents.

Re:I don't get it.

[jandrese]

Yeah, a big reason Baidu is so big in China is that they don't get randomly blocked by the great firewall. Remember that for the most part people just want to do their searches, they don't care about the great rights struggle and whatnot. If Google doesn't work 50% of the time then people will just switch to one that does, even if it is run by the Communist party and not as good.

Re:I don't get it.

[ChronosWS]

Don't forget: Four: China could throw a bunch of Google's Chinese employees in jail on whatever charges they like, creating a PR nightmare for Google ("Yeah we tried not to do evil, but a lot of our people are in jail now, their lives permanently ruined.") For good measure, China could execute a few. That would bring any other company thinking of 'doing good' right into line. This of course simplifies the politics associated with China doing business with American companies, but it is not outside the realm of their capability (nor I imagine willingness) to do if they thought it would help them keep control.

No need to get out of China

[pipatron]

not to engage in self-censorship, resist by all legal means the demands to censor information, inform the user in case their information was provided to the government, and generally not to store sensitive user data in the countries with below average free speech policies. As this proposal, if passed, would effectively mean the end of Google's China operations

I fail to see how this would end their operations in china.

• It's not self-censorship if they are forced by law to do it.
• They can resist by all legal means to censor information, but if it's illegal to display a certain type of information, they are complying with the law.
• As far as I know (I may be wrong here), Google need not submit any user information to the Chinese government.
• ...nor do they need to store user data in China in order to operate there, at least no more than a temporary cache couldn't solve (where temporary means a couple of minutes for each user)

Or what did I miss?

Re:Screw the Chinese

[Timesprout]

I will bear this in mind when you get taken for an extended waterboarding vacation in Gitmo.

Of course it was...

[Anonymous Coward]

Larry Page and Sergey Brin hold a majority stake in the company plus the structure of the share class prevents outside shareholders from really having a say in anything Google does.

That's the spirit! (sort of)

[N3wsByt3]

"I don't see that Google is wrong here; some other company more willing to go along with the government would take their place if they pull out."

"I don't see where I'm wrong here," the hitman said, "if I don't do it, some other hitman would take my place if I pull out".

The argument that doing something unethical becomes ethical (or less unethical) because others would do it if you don't, is nonsensical.

This is not evil

[KingSkippus]

I'm failing how to see how this is evil.

Let's not kid ourselves. These proposals were aimed at doing the following:

• Getting Google to stop serving China.

I think the misguided idea here is that Google can single-handedly pressure the Chinese government into giving free speech to its citizens. The rationale, I suppose, is that China wants Google so badly that they will shed off oppression just to have it.

If you believe this, you're fooling yourself. There's not a damn thing that Google can do to give people in China the right to free speech. If this proposal passed, the Chinese government would simply block Google from all of China, and by the time the Chinese people do hopefully have free speech someday, they'll all be using Yahoo and MSN instead of Google.

If you don't like the fact that the Chinese people don't have free speech, be mad at the right people, the people who are actually responsible for it: The Chinese government. Stop being so indignant with companies who are doing what they can with the rules they have to play with.

• Force Google to fight things like the DMCA here in the United States

I'm all for Google fighting the DMCA. However, I am not in favor of forcing them to, which is exactly what this proposal would do. They should have the right to choose the battles they wish to fight. If I start my own business and decide that I (and my shareholders) want to fight for the prevention of animal cruelty and dedicate some of my profits towards that goal, that's noble. If an outside group decides that I (and my shareholders) should fight for the prevention of animal cruelty, and then we get raked over the coals because we decide that there are more worthwhile causes to take up, well, I wouldn't care so much.

Is repealing the DMCA a priority of mine? Yes. Do I call people (or companies) "evil" for not making it a priority of theirs? No.

And is anyone thinking that this is a double standard? Even in the United States, Google engages in proactive censorship. I'm sure there has been at least a few cases of national security information the government didn't want to get out being taken down, and we know that copyrighted videos have been pulled. In the case of China, this proposal says that Google is supposed to say, "To hell with it, we're going to do it anyway." In the case of the United States, though, Google is supposed to say, "We'll use legal means to resist."

• Compel Google to break international laws.

As for telling people when Google has to disclose information about them, I actually would be in favor of such a proposal. It sounds like they are trying to keep Google for doing something like getting someone arrested, and when you cross the line from censoring your own operations and ruining other people's lives, it's a different ballgame.

But keep in mind a couple of things. First of all, it's not like China is the only place this can happen. If I used Gmail to send out terrorist threats here in the U.S., our government would compel Google to turn over my personally identifiable information. Is that a bad thing? I don't know, but there's no practical way Google can say, "Okay, this is a harmless joke e-mail, so we'll wipe the user's data. This is Chinese free speech, so we'll wipe the user's data. Whoops, this is a terrorist threat, so we'll keep this around for a while." Even if they could, I'm not so sure that is such a good idea, either. Again, there's a double standard of impractically expecting Google to comply with U.S. law, but thumb its nose at international law.

Also, to my knowledge, Google hasn't turned over personally identifiable information to a government like China. Is there some reason to think that it has? Or that if it was ordered to, that Google wouldn't fight it as vigorously as possible? How do we know that it hasn't already happened, and unlike Yahoo, Google was successful? It seems to me that compared to other soulless bastard corporations, Google would be one of the most likely to actually care about stuff like that.

Re:This is not evil

[KingSkippus]

what it can do is pressure the Western search engine businesses to stop dealing with China

Get a clue. China doesn't care. The top search engine in China is Baidu, not Google. I don't think you understand that if Google and every other Western search engine simply went away in China, there would be no riots in the streets, no calls to action, nothing at all. China would simply keep censoring its citizens. There is nothing to be gained here. Nothing.

how terrible would Yahoo look if it continued to aid the Chinese government in locking its citizenry away when Google had pulled out of the market

Here's a little experiment: Go out on the street and ask ten people at random what they know about Yahoo's participation in Chinese censorship. I guarantee you that 9.9 out of those 10 people will say that they don't know anything at all. (That last person only counts as 0.1 because they're lying just to try to look smart.) So the real answer is, Yahoo wouldn't look terrible at all. People aren't going to feel better or worse about Yahoo because of something that Google does.

Then it could raise cultural awareness in America to progress to other business sectors who would then pull out and move their factories back to America... [blah, blah, blah]

You're dreaming, right? Don't you think that Americans already know that the government in China is oppressive? I mean, we tend to hide under rocks, but please, go out and ask ten more random people whether they think the Chinese government is oppressive. I guarantee you that 10 out of 10 of them will say, "Yes, I do." And to say that other businesses will care how people feel towards Google or Yahoo to the point of shutting themselves off to the largest market in the world... I change my mind, you're not dreaming. You're clearly on drugs.

And the government does this with no help from companies, right? Google never helps the government in censoring its people, right? Google offers uncensored search engine results, right?

Now you're just being silly. Yes, the Chinese government would do this with no help from companies. Google doesn't "help" the government do anything, that implies that it's in collusion with the government. Google simply abides by the laws it has to in order to provide service. Google does exactly the same thing here in the United States, where there are also laws on what it can and can't show.

I'll say it once again since you don't seem to get it, and I'll put it in obnoxious bold letters so maybe it will start to sink in: Google does not censor the Chinese people. The Chinese government censors the Chinese people.

Can you point out the relevant quote please?

Sure, here it is: "Users will be clearly informed when the company has acceded to legally binding government requests to filter or otherwise censor content that the user is trying to access." If a government requests for Google not to disclose that they've ordered it to turn over personally identifiable information, what is Google to do? On the one hand, they have a company policy that says they must. On the other, they have a legal obligation that says they can't. If they follow their company policy (as you would have them do), they've broken international law. If they don't, they look twice as bad for not only giving up personal information and not telling the person whose information it was, but they broke their own company policy, a policy expressly created to keep that from happening, in doing so. There's no way to win with such a policy.

Of course, there's also a technical problem that's been completely overlooked here. Let's say that the Chinese government orders Google to turn over the IP addres

Re:This is not evil

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

There is nothing to be gained here. Nothing.

You're wrong. There might be nothing material to be gained. Indeed, it would probably lead to a loss. But for some of us, at least, moral stature is another thing to be valued. Google would gain because it would cease odious practices -- they would be better.

The cynicism that none of this matters would be shocking if it weren't so prevalent. Shareholder-led business activism can lead to real and positive change. We knows this because it already has.

Re:Screw the Chinese

[morari]

The parent is flamebait, huh? Not quite. If people aren't willing to help themselves, they certainly aren't worth the time for others to help. The power of the ruling class(es) means little when the numbers are against them. And this regurgitated "they don't know any better" is such a lame cop out. They may not know the exact extent of their oppression but I'm sure that more than enough of them feel that they are being oppressed.

only 10% or less of shares floated

[cslarson]

When Google went public only a small portion of outstanding shares were floated. Besides, don't they have a different share class structure. What I'm saying is that the IPO didn't cause this vote to turn out any different. The people who voted this resolution down are the same people who decided that their company would "do no evil". It is absolute bull shit for American companies to participate and aid China in their censorship efforts. There is absolutely no excuse.

Re:only 10% or less of shares floated

[niceone]

Yes, mod parent up - portraying this as a bunch of anonymous investors deciding what Google should do is inaccurate. Page, Brin, and the CEO have super-voting shares worth 10 times normal shares - they are in 100% control of Google.

"Do no evil, unless shareholders vote otherwise."

[Ruvim]

Here you go, google's new slogan at it's clearest.

What are you talking about?

[REggert]

>>Google lost the ability to "do no evil" the minute they became a publicly traded company.

Your statement is, in fact, utter nonsense.

Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin together possess 66% of the voting power in the company, which is more than enough to shoot down any proposal that the directors (i.e., they) disagree with.

The result of this vote was a decision by the founders, and NOT by random shareholders.

Made in China

[alexgieg]

I wonder how many of the people here complaining about this do personally refuse purchasing any "Made in China" goods. Because, you know, all Chinese companies are partially owned by the Chinese government itself, and an awful number of them employ slave (yes, slave) labor.

I myself am pretty much against what the Chinese government does to their citizens, but when faced with the question "How do I extend my paycheck to cover the whole month?" it's very difficult to say "No!" to Chinese products. Maybe not all, but surely many Google shareholders face similar questions.

The only solution for these dilemmas would be for Western governments as a whole to take action. Individuals like you, me and, yes, Google shareholders, simply don't have the power to make anything happen.

What is evil, exactly?

[TheCRAIGGERS]

The whole "do no evil" / China thing is quickly becoming one of my pet peeves. There is no all-encompassing moral code.

If you go to another country, you abide by their rules or you face punishment. The belief that "our" way is better than China's way is the same kind of thinking that got the US in the Iraq war. (Oh, look how wretched they are! We most go liberate them!) All countries have PR campaigns that try to keep the populace going a certain way, China just goes further.

Yes, my stance is a slippery slope; so is the opposite way of thinking. The point is, YOU can't be sure that YOU are GOOD.

Re:What is evil, exactly?

[swordgeek]

That's actually a very astute and thoughtful point.

"Our" way of thinking implies an 'us vs. them' mentality, which is what leads to many problems in the world--perhaps most of them, in fact.

(As an aside, I'd suggest that the invasion of Iraq was a carefully planned bit of empire-building wrapped in 'us vs. them' for the sake of garnering popular support. You can judge for yourself just how far in advance this was planned by reading the Project for a New American Century.)

In this case, it's a fairly simple proposition, though: Censorship is bad. IF you accept that claim, then yes--turning down an anti-censorship policy for the sake of corporate profits is bad. In fact, turning down even a provisionally good policy (i.e., based on the idea that censorship is generally bad for most cases) for profit-driven reasons can be argued as bad.

Does this rejection stink? My feeling is yes. However, that is a single-case and somewhat informed opinion. Your point that "China==censorship==bad!!!" is a stupid and thoughtless attitude still stands strongly. I hope more people consider it.

Re:Screw the Chinese

[ni42]

Actually, based on what a couple of my friends encountered when they visited China, it's worse than that. A large number of them follow the dogma that the Chinese government knows best, and rabidly support the propaganda they're fed. In other words, they DO care, but they are (duh) misinformed (to put it mildly). They don't see themselves as oppressed any more than overprotected religious children see themselves as sheltered -- and it's not their fault. The whole *point* of censorship, after all, is to keep people from seeing things about reality that would shake up the current power structure.

(This isn't to say that Google has the power to change this; I don't think it can.)

Re:Good for Google.

[gilroy]

Oh, BS. This wasn't a proposal that Google hire gun-runners and try to overthrow the Chinese. It was a proposal that Google refrain from odious practices. Yes, it would cost them money. No, it wouldn't cause the Chinese Communists to wake up and say, "Oh, wait, we should allow free speech".

It would have been a principled stand. It would have been an example. And once Google was on board, attention could be turned to other companies that conduct odious operations in collusion with the Chinese government.

Don't think organized business activism can make a real difference in the world? Think that "someone else" will always just make up the difference and the system will not change? I'd suggest you talk to someone from South Africa...

Re:Screw the Chinese

[bananaendian]

People get the government they deserve. If 1,000,000,000 chinese aren't concerned about their own basic civil liberties why should I?

I couldn't agree more. However when 10,000 of their most active members and leaders gather at around Tiananmen Square and get shot dead and run over by tanks it tends to discourage the rest. The few exchange students and workers from China around here are timid and compliant. They don't even admit they know anything about those events. They are completely into the consumer culture and fashion. There is no life in them. Its like with the today's Irish. Hundreds of years of British oppression and brutality made sure that the only ones that are left are the descendants of the cowards, the collaborators and the incompetent. I am reminded of this whenever I visit the shithole Dublin has become.

The Tamk Man was the last rebel...

Re:Morality Isn't About Evil

[KingSkippus]

if we cannot take a stand on censorship, how can we possibly expect China to?

Fine, take a stand on censorship. But by hounding Google, you're doing it wrong. I can't say this enough, it seems, so I'll bring out the obnoxious bold letters again. Google has no impact whatsoever on whether or not the Chinese government censors its citizens. None. Nada. Zilch. Zero. Goose egg.

Could they take it up as an issue and maybe make an impact using their financial resources? Maybe. But then, they could also take up fighting genocide in Darfur. They could take up preventing AIDS in Africa. They could take up womens' reproductive rights. They could take up building tidal wave detection and alerting systems in southeast Asia. They could spend every dime they have on solving the world's problems. They already spend a lot. Which other ones should they take up? What do they have to do before they're no longer evil? Go bankrupt?

If anything, by hassling Google, you're actually being counterproductive, as there are much more effective means of trying to make positive changes than wasting your time griping about a company that has absolutely no say-so in the matter at all. Do you really feel so strongly that filtering search results in China is so evil that you should boycott Google for doing it? I'm sorry, but that's pretty stupid.

Plus, if this is the standard by which you judge whether a company is or isn't evil, then you're pretty much screwed supporting any company. As I've said, every company that deals with China at all has to abide by Chinese laws. Do you have a television? Did any of its parts come from China? You obviously have a computer, who made all of the components in it?

Oh, and what do you plan on doing about the U.S. government? That's right, our own government. You know that huge national debt that we keep hearing about? Guess who owns $416.2 billion of it? That's right: China. Just to put that in perspective, that's just shy of the amount of money that has been spent on the Iraq War. That's right, put another way, China is indirectly paying for our little experiment in spreading so-called democracy. (You sure as hell didn't think that we were paying for it, did you?) So unless you want to move out to the wilderness and get by on subsistence farming and hunting, I guess you're supporting oppression in various places around the world.

So of all the productive things that could be done to help unfetter the Chinese people from government oppression, and of all the ways in which you depend on China to live a normal life, why are you singling out Google to pick on? I mean, I already know the answer, but I'm interested in seeing what you have to say.