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.

Sheer Hypocrisy

[metlin]

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.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[TWX]

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? Filtering ALL of the Internet is impossible. Stuff will slip through, even if it's only a little, even if it's shut off as soon as authorities detect that it has. That it got through at all is better than nothing. If Google's failure to willingly cooperate means that they're completely blocked in China, then as far as the West influencing things it's worse. In my opinion.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[bedroll]

You either listen to NPR or you're just on the same page as Google is. I say this because they said basically the same thing yesterday [npr.org] as what you just did.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[TWX]

I do listen to NPR, actually, but I didn't hear that interview. Interesting...

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Google better at filtering

[geekee]

"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? Filtering ALL of the Internet is impossible. Stuff will slip through, even if it's only a little, even if it's shut off as soon as authorities detect that it has. "

Actually, I bet Google is better at filtering than most other search engines, so they'll better enforce Chinese govt. policy than anyone else. It would be better if they stayed out of the market.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[LordNimon]

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.

Hypocracy apparent: google.com vs google.cn

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

• http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen [google.com]
  
• http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen [google.cn]
  

The censorship completely changes history.

Re:Hypocracy apparent: google.com vs google.cn

[mcvos]

But in support of the "something will filter through" position, I offer you this:

http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen&svnum=1 0&hl=zh-CN&lr=&cr=countryCN&start=80&sa=N [google.cn]

I see two tank pictures there.

Re:Hypocracy apparent: google.com vs google.cn

[benjjj]

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.

And now try this:

[HishamMuhammad]

• http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen+1989 [google.cn]
  

The year that never happened.

(Still, there seems to be ways around it...)

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[pilkul]

The truth is that the complex ethical decisions faced by Google don't fall easily into a black-and-white division of "good" versus "evil". Providing a powerful search service makes people better-informed and more productive. That's good! On the other hand, it gravely erodes privacy since anything you ever put on the web can be easily traced. That's bad! In this China business, they are only one part of a system engineering by the PRC govt. Either they partially submit to the Chinese demands and hope to do at least some good, or they bail out completely and leave the field to other companies who will censor even further. No decision they can make is completely non-evil.

It's really their own fault for coming up with a simplistic slogan that's impossible to fulfill in reality. That said, as far as I can see they're doing their best to act ethically in this moral minefield.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[SanityInAnarchy]

Notice, Google isn't complaining. They're just doing what they see to be the most "good", whatever anyone thinks.

I also would agree that Google has admitted that there is Evil, and that they don't want to be Evil. But they never said that Evil is absolute, that in every choice, there will be one that is obviously Evil, and one that is obviously Good. If they did, they'd be in an even worse place than they are now -- supporting Open Source is a little evil, because it takes marketshare away from Microsoft

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[smchris]

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?

So if our influence is demonstrating that we will always sacrifice the morals we talk about for money, the good we are doing is........?

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[TWX]

"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.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[tommers]

But the problem is not that clever people can't find accurate information about Tienamen Square if they do some clever search sleuthing, its that the government has censored this information from as many mainstream channels as possible. None of this information is fully protected from citizens in China, but being able to keep dissent out of most mainstream channels (print, television, radio, top results on major search engines) has a huge affect on the perception of the government's human rights violations

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[TWX]

And ignoring China altogether helps?

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[IdleTime]

Depends...

By going along with China's policy, you accept that what the Chinese government does. is the correct thing.
By staying away frm China, you close off a market of 1.2 billion people, not exactly a move that is going to win many points with the shareholders.

But, if you want to change the way China operates and not beeing seen as a supporter of China and it's oppressive politics, you have to stay away and then work towards change in the Chinese system. But then again, Google is an American company and they will go to hell and back for a dollar and they don't care about anything else. And as such, google is just continuing the traditiion from USA. The tradition is to say one thing and do something else.

Is there a company in USA that has some moral fibre left?

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[DaveJay]

Is there a company in USA that has some moral fibre left?

Yes, cereal manufacturers.

Oh, wait, that's just the fiber part.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[Senzei]

By going along with China's policy, you accept that what the Chinese government does. is the correct thing.

No, by going along with China's policy you assert that providing a (however limited) search facility that will help subvert the governments objectives is better than nothing at all. Life is not fair, sometimes the best thing you can do to help still sucks. In fairytale land things like the policies of China's government would not exist and "Do No Evil" would be all flowers and puppies, but here in t

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[Rayne Van-Dunem]

Y'know, your sig applies *way* too much here. These fools are going to continue to keep griping about Google's collusion with the evil empire without any single thread of consideration for the fact that there are PEOPLE, common *human beings*, involved at the very core of this arrangement. The vast majority of these folks at Slashdot are so infatuated with "democracy, human rights for all, and Free Tibet" that they don't even recognize basic human needs when they're evident. Geez, the West *is* doomed....

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[mumblestheclown]

Imagine for a moment that you live in Saudi Arabia, where the interent is filtered with the help of cisco systems (I believe). Tell me exactly how you know that Cisco systems is or is not sharing data with the government? How do you know? The point is that you fear trying. Filtering has chilling effects. The basic statement that I was referring to, the idiotic notion that the internet can not be filtered, is independent of the details of this particular google case.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[secolactico]

I am willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt if they promise the following:

Ok, let's keep in mind a couple of things.

Google is not a goverment, it's a corporation. I don't think the PRC will take kindly to a corporation setting that kind of terms on them. Threats to cut off service to the country will probably be met with general laughter from the PRC's ministry in charge of that deal. Google does not provide a unique service and the PRC is aware of that. And so is everybody else.

The second poi

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[Tlosk]

"Neither of those gets them out of the hypocrisy hole."

Wrong. Hypocrisy requires enough control over the situation to be able to do what one says. Is a mother a hypocrite when she says she loves her child but the child dies from luekemia? I mean how could you say you love your child and then let the child die?

You shouldn't judge based on a situation that doesn't exist. Google only has certain options when dealing with China, a sovereign nation. Did they choose the option most consistent with their guiding philosophy?

The parent is correct, unless you can suggest something else, doing no business with China almost certainly would have resulted in the greater harm for the Chinese. Just look at what we have done to the people of Cuba and Iraq (the general population).

Don't take the roof from over my head, the food off my table, or the book out of my hands and crow you are doing me a favor. Blind adherence to "ideals" that ignores the real world consequences is the true hypocrisy I believe.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[An Onerous Coward]

You're comparing Google refusing to filter search results for a communist dictatorship to a full-scale embargo of China? Claiming that refusing to provide filtered search services is the same as starving an entire country is more than a little over-the-top.

I haven't seen anyone saying "Google shouldn't do business in China, because they're evil Communists." But they really shouldn't be doing anyone's dirty work for them. Political censorship is the dirtiest work there is, it's antithetical to Google's mi

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[Tlosk]

You're familiar I'm sure with the Safesearch option that Google provides, by default it is on. Are your searches any less useful or meaningful given that you are searching a subset of the world's information that doesn't include pornography? Is it any less "accurate" to use your words? Certainly by some degree, but we still find such searches useful don't we? As will the Chinese benefit in all their searches that are not politically oriented.

No one here is arguing this isn't an undesirable situation, but in a choice between filtering political content (a subset of all the information indexed by Google) and China restricting all access to the search engine which is worse? It's the same reason I brought up Cuba and Iraq, not to compare specific situations (filtering vs UN sanctioned embargos) but rather the rationale behind the decision and the negative consequences of taking such a course on the people. So you would rather they have zero access, rather than access to everything but political content objectionable to China's Regime?

Hopefully China can be convinced to be more open and tolerant, but given that it's unlikely to happen today or the next day, what do we do in the meantime?

I wish I could view the world in the terms you describe, where decisions like this are "slam-dunk[s], no brainer[s]" but there just seems to be no optimal path that avoids all harm. The best I can see is choosing the path of least harm/greatest good, keeping an eye both on the short and the long term consequences. It makes things more complicated and decisions more agonizing, but I'm not willing to pay the price of harmful outcomes on the ground just for moral convenience.

Fundamentalism

[Thing 1]

Amen brother! First we saw it in Afghanistan, but we stomped it out.

Now we're seeing it in USA, and ...

Hang on, there's a knock at the door.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[Thing 1]

So you're saying they should just _lie_ to the Chinese government?

Great idea. "Dear esteemed heads of Google, you are cordially invited to our palace where we will honor and reward you for helping our country roll into the new millenium."

I'm sure they're able to read between the lines, but were I a Google higher-up, I'd prefer not to travel to a hostile country where people disappear.

Just one thing....

[IAAP]

By taking on the filtering themselves, Google is making the statement to Chinese citizens that they support their government's censorship, whereas if they stood their ground and kept the search results uncensored, at least some Chinese citizens using out-of-country proxies would be able to use the search engine to its fullest extent.

How would the Chinese people know about the censorship if no one tells them about it? Their government controls their media and as far as the average person would be concerned

Re:Just one thing....

[shotfeel]

How would the Chinese people know about the censorship if no one tells them about it?

That seemed to be the main point of the woman who was interviewed on "The News Hour" on PBS last night. Priot to this, if you did a Google search in China, you would see all the listings. If you clicked on a search result the Chinese government filtered, the link wouldn't load -but you knew it was there. The way Google does it now, that link will never show up in the first place. The searcher won't know what's missing. The

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[TWX]

"[...]at least some Chinese citizens using out-of-country proxies would be able to use the search engine to its fullest extent."

Why would that stop working on account of this? If they're out of country proxies, then they're not in IP-space that Google would be monitoring. They should remain entirely unaffected.

How 'bout this one, since we're being hypothetical all of the way around here: What if the general populace's use of Google makes it popular enough that more and more of them want to use anonymous proxies in third party countries? Wouldn't that actually work even more against the Chinese Government?

I'm not going to worry about China right now. The more Western they're exposed, the more they'll change, and right now there's no good indication of where that's going. I'm willing to let it happen to find out.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[SailorFrag]

By taking on the filtering themselves, Google is making the statement to Chinese citizens that they support their government's censorship, whereas if they stood their ground and kept the search results uncensored, at least some Chinese citizens using out-of-country proxies would be able to use the search engine to its fullest extent.

Ah, but there's something clever that Google will be doing there -- they said that if anything is censored out, then the search results will contain a note saying that "some

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[thetejon]

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.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[voice_of_all_reason]

How is obeying the laws of China when trying to do business in China "doing evil"?

"I was only following orders" went out of style at Nuremburg

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[acvh]

This comes down to whether or not you believe in objective evil. Is there a difference between a law that says you can't smoke in an office building and a law that says that to criticize the government is punishable by torture? My answer is that, Yes, there is a big difference.

By doing business with the PRC in this way Google, and anyone else who does so, sacrifices objective good for profit. Google could easily just say, No, we will not do your dirty work for you, and stay out of China.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[AndersOSU]

This is age old moral relativism...

Should I stop another culture from allowing the use of dangerous fireworks?
Should I stop another culture from caning people?
Should I stop another culture from restricting trade on the latest gee-whiz makes your life easier device?
Should I stop another culture from oppressing freedom of speech and religion?
Should I stop another culture from systematically sexually and physically abusing a minority group?
Should I stop another culture from allowing slavery?
Should I stop another culture from committing genocide?

Saying that we shouldn't impose our values on another culture is fine, but only to a certain point. Maybe we should allow them to censor information, but definitely we shouldn't make it easier for them to do so. There has to be a line somewhere, and our opposition to any culture should be proportional to how far along a "continuum of evil" they are. I think that today we shouldn't be helping China censor their population.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

True, they could refuse to do business in China. But what will that accomplish?

It would allow Google to live up to its own motto, which is no small thing.
It would, presumably, lead to a loss of comparative advantage for China, if we assume that (in a moral-free world) using Google is the optimal choice for them.
It would help highlight the problem.

All that refusing to do business there will do is cost Google money. It won't change the world.

A major US company turning its back on many millions based solely on adherence to principle? Not change the world? It would send shockwaves through the world. It challenges the very basis of market capitalism.

I think that's asking a lot.

(A) We're not really asking anything. Google has told the world that they will do business guided by "Don't be evil". That's saying a lot. All we're asking is that they follow what they say.

(b) And if it is asking a lot -- well, too bad. Being free is advanced citizenship. It's not cheap, or easy, or convenient. It's not something done as an afterthought. They want to partake of the benefits of freedom, maybe they should pony up the ticket price. And that goes for every company, not just Google.

"Everyone else is doing it" is no more a valid moral justification than "I was just following orders".

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[mrbooze]

Only on Slashdot does throwing living human beings in ovens equate to internet censorship.

Yeah, we don't like a lot of things the PRC does. We even consider some of those things "evil".

But then, a lot of other countries say that about us when we execute a mentally-challenged person, or even when we execute anyone at all. Or when we invade a country on our own volition that hasn't directly attacked us. *You* may not think those things are evil, but a lot of other people in the world do.

Have you ever bought a diamond? You're supporting "evil". Several brands of shoes and clothing? Also evil. Are Tobacco companies evil? Then huge swaths of consumer products and services support that, as those companies have their fingers in lots of other pies. Where does one draw the line?

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[kebes]

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.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[MightyMartian]

It may have been a difficult choice, but Google lead everyone to believe that they were different. In the end they weren't. They are enablers of tyrants, and they deserve the bad press. I hope the money is enough assuage their compromised sense of decency. Shame on Google and shame on its investors, friends of knowledge-fearing tyrants.

Re:Sheer Hypocrisy

[drgonzo59]

I have mentioned this in other of my posts [slashdot.org] , but I'll say it again. Many people make the mistake and treat companies like they treat individuals: they expect honesty, integrity, feelings ("How could they fire me! I have a family!"), charity and so on. All those things are true of very small companies when image/character of the company = image/character of owners. As the companies get bigger they become money machines. That is all the comanies are and the only reason why they exist - to make $$$ at whate

Google might be hypocrite, but you, Sir, are snob

[aralin]

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.

Re:Google might be hypocrite, but you, Sir, are sn

[Anonymous Coward]

From a western perspective, false and biased information is as dangerous (if not more so) than a total lack of information. For instance, I find people without televisions and who ignore news altogether to be generally have more well-founded opinions and to be more open-minded than people who watch FOXNews religeously. The current administration and their supporters are an example of the product of biased, incensant ranting in the mainstream, right-wing media.

If google had simply quietly complied with Ch

News media doesn't get it

[WebHostingGuy]

When they sold the stock their creed changed from "Do no evil" to "Do no evil to our stockholders".

Re:News media doesn't get it

[b0r1s]

Yet they let them get raped (9% fall in one day [yahoo.com] on 2006/01/20) by telling the DoJ 'no' to sharing a weeks worth of search terms ...

They're inconsistent. They refuse to play by some rules, and then they bend over backwards to comply with others. I'm not impressed.

Re:News media doesn't get it

[porkThreeWays]

Hmmm, yes. Because not handing over search information to the feds making their stock take a huge dive really makes me think they cater to shareholders. I think google is smart enough to pick their battles. China isn't one of them (right now anyway).

Re:News media doesn't get it

[killjoe]

Bingo!.

A corporation HAS to act evil(*). It has no choice. The only moral imperitive of a corporation is "make more money". That's it. There is nothing else (or at least everything else has to take a back seat.

* by evil I am using the biblical definition as in "love of money is the root of all evil" and "it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven then for a camel to go through the eye of a needle".

Another Article

[gowen]

There's an excellent article [guardian.co.uk] or two [guardian.co.uk] discussing Google past, present and future in today's Guardian, as well. The second one is the better.

It does offer a benefit

[portwojc]

It passionately claims that "Google has steadfastly refused to make any change that does not offer a benefit to the users who come to the site."

How about this as a benefit. The person in China using Google doesn't wind up in jail or worse a bill to his family from the state for the bullet.

This is beyond the obvious of China not letting Google do business there.

Re:It does offer a benefit

[superyanthrax]

You exaggerate greatly. Most likely they'd just end up with a fine. Only for severe cases does China put people in jail or execute them.

Re:It does offer a benefit

[Skjellifetti]

Only for severe cases does China put people in jail or execute them.

China 'outstrips world' on executions [bbc.co.uk].

Death penalty crimes in China:

• Violent crime
• Drugs offences
• Separatism
• Aiding Tibet border crossings
• Bribery
• Pimping
• Embezzlement
• Tax fraud
• Insurance fraud
• Stealing petrol
• Selling harmful foodstuffs
• Disrupting the stock market

Whose "evil"?

[oGMo]

Now whose "evil" are we talking about? In the US, it's clear from our constitution and bill of rights what we, as a country, hold valuable and consider "evil".

However, as so many people like to say, the US is not the rest of the world. There are other countries, with other values, and they aren't necessarily the same as ours. Are they "wrong"? What makes ours "right"? Because we like them?

Who is trying to push morals/values/ethics on someone else now? Or is this just what we say when we don't like

Re:Whose "evil"?

[carlivar]

So maybe slavery and genocide aren't evil either?

Re:Whose "evil"?

[shackma2]

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.

Re:Whose "evil"?

[oGMo]

By saying we should judge Chinas values according to their own culture, you are promoting ethical relativism.

So whose ethical absolute are you promoting? Yours? Why is yours more valid than mine?

In short, what makes your "evil" evil?

Re:Whose "evil"?

[hal2814]

Yeah just because the Chinese government kills a few protesters [google.com] and then covers it up with the help of Google [google.cn] doesn't mean they're doing something evil in their culture. What they did wasn't even illegal. Get a grip, people.

Re:Whose "evil"?

[Skjellifetti]

Fortunately, even Google can't hide everything [google.cn].

Re:Whose "evil"?

[Qzukk]

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?

Obeying Laws

[SnowZero]

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.

Re:Obeying Laws

[Phanatic1a]

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?

An analogy indicating that laws prohibiting lead in electronics and laws against seeking democratic political reform are equally valid and equally deserving of respect gets modded as insightful?

Here, I'll explain.

What is wrong with "obeying the laws of a country in which you do business" depends upon the nature of the laws and the nature of the country. A European company would not be evil if it sold non-lead-free electronics in the US, because the US is a democratic state containing at least some feedback between the populace affected by the laws and the process which creates and enforces those laws. If the citizens within the US wanted to change the laws to ban the sale of non-lead-free electronics, then they are capable of doing so, and therefore this hypothetical European country would not be capitalizing on an oppressed and captive citizenry.

Now consider a different European country. Instead of selling non-lead-free electronics in the United States, it sells slaves in Sudan. This company would be acting in accord with the law [religioustolerance.org] in Sudan.

There. That's a lot closer to the situation in China: a non-democratic nation whose citizens have no power to effect change in the laws of their country or the manner in which the laws are enforced, and who tend to get crushed under the treads of tanks or suffer sudden 7.62mm brain hemmorhages if they try to do so. Would you excuse that company's actions because you "don't see what's wrong with obeying the laws of a country in which you do business," or would you suddenly acquire the capacity for moral judgement and just maybe perhaps suggest that the company shouldn't do business selling slaves in fucking Sudan?

Re:Obeying Laws

[Phanatic1a]

This is just as far to the right of reality as the parent post is to the left.

Yes, it is.

My intent is not to claim that what Google is doing is akin to selling slaves. All analogies break down.

My intent was to beat the parent poster over the head with the staggeringly modern notion that just because something is legal does not mean that it is moral, and that just because the law requires that you do something does not indicate that it is ethical or moral for you to comply with it.

A law can, at *best*, only

Re:Obeying Laws

[ChaosDiscord]

I'm sorry I don't see what is wrong with obeying the laws of a country in which you do business.

You're seriously suggesting that there are no laws so fundamentally immoral that to obey them would be evil? Prior to the US Civil War, one was legally obligated to turn in runaway slaves. I would suggest that following that law was more wrong than breaking the law. In Nazi Germany it was illegal to conceal Jews. Again, I'd suggest that obeying that law would be wrong. Ratting out your fellow filmmakers as

Re:Yes, they surely did decide

[daveb]

I'm wondering which nation you are using for the benchmark of:

"99% corruption-free referendum where they decided to cede all control over speech to their central government?"

It surely isn't any english speaking country. Certainly not the USA - maybe Britain (but I doubt it).

no this isn't a troll - criticisim issues within the USA does not mean anti-USA

Lesser evil

[gmuslera]

World is not black and white, but a lot of shades of grey, no absolute good or absolute evil (ok, maybe Microsoft :), If google had to choose between giving censored result to chinese people, or just DONT give any result because is blocked, letting them only what the approved, with far less indexed content search engine, what is the less evil?

Sometimes you cant avoid harming, good intentions or not, but you can take a path that gives the minimum/less permanent damage.

not hypocrisy in the least

[rsw]

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

Re:not hypocrisy in the least

[nothings]

You are looking at it from a flawed perspective. "If I don't do it, somebody else will" is a pragmatic argument, not a moral argument. You're still doing evil.

Your economic analysis is also incorrect. The United States government eventually dropped its laws that cryptographic algorithms should be subject to munitions export laws, in part because those laws caused US companies to be unable to compete in the world market. Refusing to supply Google search to the Chinese could possibly result in China being l

Re:not hypocrisy in the least

[booch]

I agree -- Google doesn't have enough leverage to go in and say "we're going to operate here without your censorship, and there's nothing you can do about it."

Another way to look at it (or state it) is whether the Chinese people would be "more free" with a censored Google, or no Google at all. I think the answer is that even a censored Google will help them to gain more awareness of the situation. For one thing, censorship is an enumerating badness [ranum.com] type of deal; the government is always going to miss things

Re:not hypocrisy in the least

[Mr.Ned]

I disagree. Your position is no different than that of a slaveholder in the Americas during the 17th century who says "I have no leverage to end slavery, but I'll still hold slaves because if I expose them to Western culture and Christianity I've done them a service."

Google (and similar companies) should say to China, "no, we find the rules to which you will subject us to be morally unacceptable, and so we choose not to do business in your country." Economic pressure through divestiture was key in the downfall of South African aparthied, and there's no reason that similar boycotts can't work in China.

Re:not hypocrisy in the least

[TubeSteak]

Google (and similar companies) should say to China, "no, we find the rules to which you will subject us to be morally unacceptable, and so we choose not to do business in your country."

You realize a statement like that has serious side effects?

If Google actually stepped up and said "morally unacceptable," the State Department would flip out.

It wouldn't just be a business statement, it would be a statement of foreign policy.

The United States does not encourage criticism of China. Clinton decided to grant mos

Re:not hypocrisy in the least

[tommers]

And whether or not Google has direct influence of China's access policies, they certainly influence the world's perception of the the ethicalness of obeying them.

If Google had chosen to refuse business in China as statement, it would certainly put pressure on MSN and Yahoo. It might be good for their stocks, but it would certainly be bad for their P.R. and make it more difficult for other visible companies to make compromises in China. This doesn't make the decision easy or obvious, but Google is certainl

Options

[kevin_conaway]

So Google has the choice to either not do business in China or do what they're doing now.

Others are suggesting that there is a third option which is that it should be"using its market power to support free speech and influence the Chinese government ". How exactly would that work? What do they expect Google to do?

China and practically the entire world knows that China is poised to become the worlds biggest economy in the coming years. They know it and I don't think businesses really have ANY influe

Depends on the eventual implementation

[RyanFenton]

If Google were to have implemented a whitelist that was managed by China, and only allow a search based on this, I'd agree with the spirit of these criticisms completely. However, the implementation that exists seems to leave plenty of room for people to find ways to know that they can access real information despite the limitations. Having a common search engine with the rest of the world will allow an easier path to the "grey market" of outside oppinions than may otherwise be unavailable to casual searchers.

Still, this level of "cooperation" with the Chinese censors shows no inherent sign that Google won't be ratcheting up their limitations on the engine even further... I see no limits in place to make sure further corruption won't happen. Perhaps behind the scenes, they exist, but in the context, I do agree with this part of the criticism of Google's actions.

Still Google as it now exists is a nice window in the firewall of China, even if it has been smudged. At least it's open enough for open source projects of various sorts to know how to build a door for those interested.

Not defending Google but..

[nolife]

Wouldn't the supporting of censorship or giving into the government of China pretty much be a requirement if they want to do business in China?
I guess the other option is to not do business there at all.

The censorship is and will be there regardless of any new company that comes in to do business. I guess the act of Google or any company doing what the government wants could be considered supporting the censorship but specific companies not doing business over there is not going to change anything either.

To Quote So I Married an Axe Murderer

[COMON$]

"It Depends on what you consider evil, what one considers evil, another may see as completely rational"

Or something along those lines.

Best thing Google can do under the circumstances!

[Theovon]

Yes, up front, let's recognize that money is a factor. But this is no surprise. Money is ALWAYS a factor. That has nothing to do with whether or not Google is doing the right thing. There are more important factors involved:

(1) If Google did not censor their content for China, Google would not be allowed into China at all. Google is an incredibly valuable resource for anyone looking for information. What's worse? Giving the Chinese as much information as Chinese law allows? Or leaving them with nothing at all?

(2) What is the "right thing"? By whose terms? We're arrogantly acting like American values of free speech are the only possible meaningful set of values. Don't get me wrong; from my perspective, free speech is vital, and China is only hurting itself by being totalitarian. But by the standards of the Chinese government and many Chinese people, Google is most CERTAINLY doing the "right thing" by censoring content.

So, when it comes down to it, all Google is doing is obeying the law, just as they would have to do if the US government passed some horribly boneheaded law. It's either that or go out of business. Are you so foolish as to think that Google could resist the censorship and somehow manage to bully the Chinese government into allowing Google access from within China anyway? Come back when you have your head out of your ass.

More of a victim then evil.

[jellomizer]

You go on vacation in China and start touting about a Free Tibette, you may get arrested, deported, detained, or something to make your remaining time mizerable. So when you go to China for vacation you keep your mouth shut about the politics and human rights and just injoy yourself.
China is a rapidly modernizing state, but its politcs are stuck in the 1960s. But without Google they will still be very isolated (Internet wise). Even if google does censor the information they are doing more good then harm. What Google can do is give people ideas that are not directly connected to the censored items and have them figure it out themselfs.

Slavery

[Himuanam]

All the argument used to defend Google could also have been used to defend companies that helped facilitate the slave trade.

"Honoring a sovereign nation" - Check
"Every culture has different values" - Check
"Working within the law to make some money" - Check

And with the argument of, "We will be nice to the slaves, and since other companies would undoubtedly step in and be cruel to them - we are justified in our assistance," we complete the similarities.

Money rules all - there's nothing new under the sun.

Open Internet already a thing of the past

[Infonaut]

Google is the highest-profile player in the game of free access vs. government control, but the larger battle has been going on for years. Unfortunately, governments are winning [legalaffairs.org]. What's fascinating to me is just how much the law of unintended consequences comes into play here. The first shot in this war was French government's battle with Yahoo! over Nazi-related materials. Seems like a good idea to keep those nasty Nazis from using the Net to spread their vile beliefs. Unfortunately, once you put down a fe

It's the other way around...

[cf18]

If any of you actually try the new google.cn page, you will find that it's Google who makes a mockery of China's censorship policy. All the sensitive string I tried like "june4th" in either English or Chinese have returned links on the first few pages that are highly critical to the government. On top of that even if the link is blocked, the user can still get the text content through google cache - a highspeed backdoor through the firewall.

Yeah but.....

[hhr]

"Do no evil" is not "Be holier than though." Do no evil does not mean they can force their values upon other countries.

Their choices are to operate in China under China's rules, or to get out. They can't choose to operate in China under US rules. So which is better for their users? I think it's better, less evil, for google to run their Chinese access under Chinese rules, than to provide no access at all.

Capitalism and Competetive Advantage

[digitaldc]

If it is your goal to make profits through a global Capitalist system, whether you do evil or not goes out the window?

What would happen to Google if they suddenly decided to withdraw from China?
I wonder if Microsoft and other companies would gain a significant competetive advantage just for being available to a large part of the world's population?

Google isn't "being evil" ...just realistic

[oneiron]

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.

Justin Jardin is Evil

[version5]

I'm sure Justin Jardine will be taking down the Google Search Bar from the front page of his website any day now. He's probably busy taking care of customers though, because he just managed to spam Slashdot with a link to his ATV online store.

FBI and China - two difficult moral decisions

[daveb]

I think they chose well on both - and they were very different issues. There is a world of difference between the FBI issue and the China one.

With the FBI case [slashdot.org], a goverment was asking (demanding) that Google hand over search logs which would seriously comprimise the privacy, and perhaps the security, of a large number of citizens. Google said "naff off" - and kudos to them. I wish Yahoo and MS had the balls to do the same (but I wouldn't expect it)

With China, a goverment is requiring that Google not allow it's citizens access to certain data. Google have agreed. I think it's a shame but I can understand Google following national laws - especially when it has no privacy or survaliance result. I suspect the alternative would be that Google would be blocked from the Chinese national firewalls. In either case the citizens are prevented from accessing the search results. With this result the citizens do not have reduced access (they'd be blockedone way or another) but google retains a presence

Now - if Google were also handing over the logs of failed search requests then it would be a double standard and hypocrisy, and definitly "doing evil". As it stands I think the two issues are quite seperate. I also think they've come to a reasonably good conclusion when faced with very difficult moral questions

Published on Yahoo! I see...

[NickFortune]

...so no conflict interest there.

Just imagine, a lesser company might have taken the opportunity to jump on the bandwagon and gratuitously smear the reputaton of it's leading rival.

The Cuba Theory - makes China More Free

[wsanders]

Making almost everything accessible in as open a way as possible under the circumstances is the best way to make China more free. Most Chinese are aware their government is corrupt, that they have serious envionmental issues to work through, and that Falun Gong is a harmless cult.

This is my Cuba Theory - if instead of the stupid policy we have now the US opened up our borders to Cuba, allowed free trade and free communication even within the limitations of Castro's murderous regime, Cuba would be a free and prosperous democracy in months, not years, and Castro would live out his days happily doddering away in retirement.

The same IS WORKING NOW from China. Because we opened our doors, China is a better and freer place every day.

Of course, we are utterly dependent on Chinas' good will, and soom half of America will be scrubbing toilets for Red Army officers, but hey that's progress.

Google should publish the filter list

[mcguirez]

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.

Let ye who cast the first stone..

[sboyko]

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.

Decisions, decisions..

[lionchild]

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.

Re:Decisions, decisions..

[robertjw]

Great point, which is even more appropriate in China. The Chinese culture has a history of being resistant to change and have not repsonded well when foriegners have attempted to force them to change quickly. Make much more sense to give the chinese people access to some of Google's content than have the government shut them off from the rest of the world completely.

Now if this was occuring in a 'free' country like the US, Canada, EU, etc... I would have a real problem with it. I think it's interest

different search criteria in China

[SethJohnson]

When the Chinese Google appeared, I went over there to see if my own website would appear or if it was censored. I did a search for 'Austin Skate Notes [google.cn]'. It showed up as the first result. But the second result is a link to a photo album deeply nested in my site that contains photos I shot at a George Bush Protest in Austin. I was kind of surprised because it's not linked to from other sites that I know of and I have other content on my site that talks about the new Shanghai skatepark and Chinese-made skate decks.

When you search 'Austin Skate Notes [google.com]' on the American Google, the Bush protest does not appear on the first page of results. It's interesting to me that the Chinese Google thinks visitors would be more interested in the protest photos than American Google users.

Seth

Wasted Opportunity

[fbg111]

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.

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 [breitbart.com], 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 /. 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.

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.

Do no evil- But who decides what is evil?

[pcause]

The whole "Do No Evil" thing is nothing more than a brilliant piece of marketing. Just think about this: who defines what "evil" means? Answer: Google! Think for a minute about the amount of personal information that Google is collecting about you. It is as much or more than what is collected by the most hated spyware companies. If the spyware folks are evil for doing this, why isn't Google.

Google said they wouldn't monitor you email and now they do. Yeah they changed the TOS, but quietly. Did you get an email clearly explaining the change and asking if you wanted to opt out? Google knows people are very reluctant to change email addresses. They get you hooked on an email address and service, give you lots of features and promise to be nice. After you are hooked and that is where all your correspondence goes, surprise, the TOS change.

A recent survey showed that something like 75% of the people had no idea about he personal data Google collects and what they do with it. They currently promise only to use it for their business purposes. But they also reserve the right to change their minds about this.

Do not evil is simple the best marketing program in years. Google is a commercial enterprise like all the others. They are no better and may or may not be worse. They do a lot of cute stuff to fool you. The founders take salaries of $1. Gee, if you are worth 10 billion it is a real hardship. But the press reports this and they look like good guys. These guys are the best PR guys out there.

But, despite how good they are at the hype game, just remember: You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time! Eventually, the public catches on and sees through the hype. The Chine stuff is the first crack in the wall of brilliant PR.

Perspective of an American Living in China

[jjn1056]

I'm really sad this happened, even though in theory it means that I will have better access to Google in the near future.

The idea that serving something is better than nothing is totally false. The idea that by serving a little now someday it will help influence people to demand change from the gov't is also false. I live in Beijing and with all the free market capitalism here there is not an equal demand for freedom (other than freedom to buy stuff). That's because people are convinced the best they can hope for is to have money to buy stuff and dodge the gov't as much as possible. Cynical, yes, but after living here for 2 years that is what I see.

All that it does is tell the Chinese Gov't people are willing to accede to their demands to help them inprove fascism. It's part of a strategy to give the appearance of freedom without the moral depth.

Here's something. Send Google a message:

http://www.google.com/search?q=censorship+is+doing +evil [google.com]

Anyone out their good with Gimp and can wip up a nice little logo? If that query suddenly became the most popular search string at google maybe it will wake them up.

Re:Sometimes it is

[mudetroit]

When the laws themself violate basic human rights it is indeed evil to follow them.

Re:Sometimes it is

[Anonymous Coward]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

Re:Oh, I get it...

[Qzukk]

It's evil to obey laws

What if the laws themselves are evil?

Re:Oh, I get it...

[adlib24]

Extreme counter-arguement:

The Holocaust was the law of the Nazis.

Genocide in Camobia: the law of the Khmer-Rouge.

Child soldiers in Sudan: the law of the land.

Mass execution of Kurds in Iraq: the law of Sadam.

Tiananmen Square Masacre...

Well, you get the point.

Now, I am not anti-China. It is poised to emerge as the next super power in every conceivable way...BUT...that doesnt mean everything law they enact is right. The Western world has a storied history about how the free and open exchange of id

Re:lets be serious....

[OneWebster]

Chinas internet market is much smaller than googles own market share. If they were to resoundly reject a comprimise to filter search data it would affirm that they will not bow to demands. The last thing they want to do is set the precedent that they will do whatever individual countries ask of them. article quote( company's statement still says Google's goal is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.") i don't see how dumbing down the search results falls int

Re:DMCA Filter

[TheRaven64]

I've only seen one DMCA notice on Google. It said something along the lines of 'These results have been filtered in accordance with the DMCA. To view the filtered results, click here.' I was hoping that they would do the same thing in China...