Google in China

[Americano]

Google is 99.9% sure it will withdraw from China:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62C0K920100313?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r1:c 0.333333:b31827118:z0

I don't quite understand Google's position, which is based on China censoring Google content. China is a sovereign nation and the World Trade Organization ruled that censorship violates no trade rulings (here (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1016272720100310?type=marketsNews)) so why would Google, who depends on advertising for its primary revenue stream, consider abandoning the potentially largest consumer market in the world over ideology issues?

What am I missing?

[Michael]

Google is 99.9% sure it will withdraw from China:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62C0K920100313?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r1:c 0.333333:b31827118:z0

I don't quite understand Google's position, which is based on China censoring Google content. China is a sovereign nation and the World Trade Organization ruled that censorship violates no trade rulings (here (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1016272720100310?type=marketsNews)) so why would Google, who depends on advertising for its primary revenue stream, consider abandoning the potentially largest consumer market in the world over ideology issues?

What am I missing?
Yes, it does looks odd since Google has previously accepted the fact that China would censor access to outside news/information articles. That was always part of Google's deal there.

However, I believe that China's security service may have accessed Google's mail servers directly without bothering to ask Google's permission. China's security service does like to monitor particular its political activists quite thoroughly. Anyway, the upshot of this is that Google can't promise any kind of privacy or integrity to its Chinese email customers and figures that this would ultimately harm its brand in the long run.

Don't quote me on this, I'm just speculating based on 'reading between the lines' on several articles I've read. No one comes out and says this outright, but it does appear to fit. The whole issue seems to have began when Google got upset with something the Chinese government did involving access of email accounts about six months ago. Ever since that 'incident' Google has become increasingly 'anti-China' and talking about pulling out.

[Americano]

Seems to me if one does business in a sovereign nation one follows the rules in that country. The Chinese people are accustomed to state intervention in what in other countries would be considered private matters.

Hell, various and sundry US security agencies monitor most email in the US (and other countries) using various key word and correspondent sender/receiver software with no legal permissions other than Patriot Act interpretations. As a business entity Google needs to deal with the circumstances rather than attempting to dictate conditions.

[dilettante]

What am I missing?

I believe Michael's correct on this. Google believes the Chinese government was involved in an attempt to hack into the company's servers in order to access the files of political dissidents. Google's PR was already on the defensive over censuring Chinese web searches; ignoring such an attempt to access private files would have hurt Google's image even more.

...As a business entity Google needs to deal with the circumstances rather than attempting to dictate conditions.

This view I don't understand.

First, why should Google "deal with the circumstances" if it doesn't want to? How is 'dictating conditions' different from simply laying out the conditions of its future operations and letting China take it or leave it? That's just business.
In short, you seem to be implying that Google is somehow 'out of line' here, but I don't see how.

Second, why not applaud a company that's willing to risk losing money in order to pressure a government to allow free access to information and curtail invasions of privacy? Frankly, I'd rather more companies took such stands, rather than simply 'dealing with the circumstances', no matter how oppressive or invasive they might be.

[Americano]

I believe Michael's correct on this. Google believes the Chinese government was involved in an attempt to hack into the company's servers in order to access the files of political dissidents. Google's PR was already on the defensive over censuring Chinese web searches; ignoring such an attempt to access private files would have hurt Google's image even more.

The US does that to we Americans on a regular basis. Under the Patriot Act any federal LE can walk into a financial institution, media firm or anywhere else and secure all available information on any person.

This view I don't understand.

First, why should Google "deal with the circumstances" if it doesn't want to? How is 'dictating conditions' different from simply laying out the conditions of its future operations and letting China take it or leave it? That's just business.
In short, you seem to be implying that Google is somehow 'out of line' here, but I don't see how.

I view the situation as Google, a US based company, doing business in China. If they don't want to operate under China's rules, then they should leave China. From a business perspective China's rules don't affect any Google operations other than in China. Why would a business want to abandon what will eventually be the largest single consumer market on the planet?

Second, why not applaud a company that's willing to risk losing money in order to pressure a government to allow free access to information and curtail invasions of privacy? Frankly, I'd rather more companies took such stands, rather than simply 'dealing with the circumstances', no matter how oppressive or invasive they might be.

We differ in that respect. I've never mixed ideology with business unless it offers a market advantage. I could care less about Chinese privacy as that's their privilege to provide or deny, not mine.

[dilettante]

The US does that to we Americans on a regular basis. Under the Patriot Act any federal LE can walk into a financial institution, media firm or anywhere else and secure all available information on any person.

And wouldn't it be nice if more companies put up a little bit of resistance to this? At least enough to push each such invasion of privacy into the headlines?

And anyway, I imagine the people at Google take greater umbrage to a government attempting to hack its way into their servers than to one using a federal law to demand information.


I view the situation as Google, a US based company, doing business in China. If they don't want to operate under China's rules, then they should leave China.

And that appears to be precisely what they're doing. So what's the problem?


From a business perspective China's rules don't affect any Google operations other than in China. Why would a business want to abandon what will eventually be the largest single consumer market on the planet?

If your analysis of the economics is correct (and I have no evidence that it isn't), then perhaps the only explanation is that some Google decision-makers are allowing principles to trump profit. If, hypothetically, that is the case, why wouldn't that be a good thing? Would you rather their motto be "Screw rights to privacy and political dissent! There's money to be made!"


We differ in that respect. I've never mixed ideology with business unless it offers a market advantage. I could care less about Chinese privacy as that's their privilege to provide or deny, not mine.

So any moral or ideological line should yield to 'market advantage'? If that's your position, then yes, we definitely differ. There are some potentially very dark figures down that road.

[Donkey]

I'm firmly in Dilettante's camp on this one. Corporations have the same moral responsibilities as individuals, because in the end they are just human beings with a logo. I'll take it further: if google have the opportunity to subvert the abusive authority of a government, they should do so.

[Lily]

Second, why not applaud a company that's willing to risk losing money in order to pressure a government to allow free access to information and curtail invasions of privacy? Frankly, I'd rather more companies took such stands, rather than simply 'dealing with the circumstances', no matter how oppressive or invasive they might be.

But is Google really taking a stand? If the issue is China illegaly gaining access to its citizens by hacking into Google's database, then why not just say so? Why make it appear that this is about censorship when Google has previously accepted China's restrictions on its search engine?

[Americano]

But is Google really taking a stand? If the issue is China illegaly gaining access to its citizens by hacking into Google's database, then why not just say so? Why make it appear that this is about censorship when Google has previously accepted China's restrictions on its search engine?

That was my OP question of what am I missing. From a commerce standpoint Google has long conceded to Chinese operating requirements. Ideology is a market policy decision in the business plan and all of a sudden Google is saying no, we won't do it China's way? In China?

[Americano]

I'm firmly in Dilettante's camp on this one. Corporations have the same moral responsibilities as individuals, because in the end they are just human beings with a logo. I'll take it further: if google have the opportunity to subvert the abusive authority of a government, they should do so.

As an entity with leadership responsible to its stockholders for a return on their investment, how does one rationalize employing ideology that, considering China's vast potential, restricts future return on investment?

[dilettante]

But is Google really taking a stand? If the issue is China illegaly gaining access to its citizens by hacking into Google's database, then why not just say so? Why make it appear that this is about censorship when Google has previously accepted China's restrictions on its search engine?

I can't pretend to know their thinking, but it may be that since the Chinese government has never (to my knowledge) admitted to being behind or involved with the attacks, Google found it easier to take its stand over an on going issue everyone admits to, one in which they can claim the high ground. They can't undo the attempted hacks, but they can hit back by dragging China's internationally unpopular censorship policy back into the spotlight.

But that's all just speculation on my part as to their motives. However, it does seem clear that Google's change in position is directly related to the attacks, since the one immediately followed the other. Otherwise its a very odd coincidence.

[Michael]

But is Google really taking a stand? If the issue is China illegaly gaining access to its citizens by hacking into Google's database, then why not just say so? Why make it appear that this is about censorship when Google has previously accepted China's restrictions on its search engine?
Because accusing China's secret service of illegal hacking is likely impossible to prove in the court of pubic opinion. Just like an accusation of illegal behavior by the CIA/NSA will get you no where in the USA.

The censorship issue is public and easily understood.

[Michael]

As an entity with leadership responsible to its stockholders for a return on their investment, how does one rationalize employing ideology that, considering China's vast potential, restricts future return on investment?
Google's long term profit picture goes out the window a whole lot faster if the mass of western netizens turn on Google and start calling it the "evil empire".

That's far more likely to happen in the near term than any long term potential in the Chinese market.

[Michael]

I can't pretend to know their thinking, but it may be that since the Chinese government has never (to my knowledge) admitted to being behind or involved with the attacks, Google found it easier to take its stand over an on going issue everyone admits to, one in which they can claim the high ground. They can't undo the attempted hacks, but they can hit back by dragging China's internationally unpopular censorship policy back into the spotlight.

But that's all just speculation on my part as to their motives. However, it does seem clear that Google's change in position is directly related to the attacks, since the one immediately followed the other. Otherwise its a very odd coincidence.
I just read this after making my reply! Indeed, this is the same reasoning I'd use here. Alleged cyber attacks by Chinese security service is easily denied by the Chinese government. The censorship policy can't be denied.

[drgoodtrips]

Personally, I think that China wouldn't be that big of a money-maker for Google and that perhaps Google regrets violating its own "Don't Be Evil" motto when agreeing to restrictive censorship in China. So, some security invasions by the Chinese government gives Google a perfect way to back out and not only save face, but smell like roses and boost their cred in a Western world that increasingly views them as 1984-ish.

I believe it's a semi-principled, fully calculated maneuver. By the way, google enjoys nowhere near the market share in China that it does here. China has some government sponsored browser/search engine with integrated draconian filtering and this search engine commands something like 70% of the market there. There might also be a problem hosting advertised content in China as well since China has far and away the most publicly hosted malware, probably much of it state sponsored.

[Michael]

I'm firmly Google in China

Why? What's in it for Google?

[Michael]

Google has released an official announcement about their withdrawl from China.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-approach-to-china-update.html

[dilettante]

Interesting...


...
So earlier today we stopped censoring our search services—Google Search, Google News, and Google Images—on Google.cn. Users visiting Google.cn are now being redirected to Google.com.hk (http://www.google.com.hk/), where we are offering uncensored search in simplified Chinese, specifically designed for users in mainland China and delivered via our servers in Hong Kong. Users in Hong Kong will continue to receive their existing uncensored, traditional Chinese service, also from Google.com.hk (http://www.google.com.hk/). Due to the increased load on our Hong Kong servers and the complicated nature of these changes, users may see some slowdown in service or find some products temporarily inaccessible as we switch everything over.

Figuring out how to make good on our promise to stop censoring search on Google.cn has been hard. We want as many people in the world as possible to have access to our services, including users in mainland China, yet the Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a non-negotiable legal requirement. We believe this new approach of providing uncensored search in simplified Chinese from Google.com.hk (http://www.google.com.hk/) is a sensible solution to the challenges we've faced—it's entirely legal and will meaningfully increase access to information for people in China. We very much hope that the Chinese government respects our decision, though we are well aware that it could at any time block access to our services. We will therefore be carefully monitoring access issues, and have created this new web page (http://www.google.com/prc/report.html#hl=en), which we will update regularly each day, so that everyone can see which Google services are available in China.
...

[Americano]

Honk Kong is a Chinese possession. Would that be the same as China using Puerto Rico to circumvent US Internet censorship of pedophilia?

[Michael]

Honk Kong is a Chinese possession. Would that be the same as China using Puerto Rico to circumvent US Internet censorship of pedophilia?
That would be a pretty good analogy.

Nothing unusual there either. Several notable US corporations use the Marianas Islands (US territory) to evade US tax and labor laws. The Republicans have been very strong in supporting this technique, continually giving Marianas exemptions from US labor law (which makes it attractive to US companies seeking to supply the US market and avoid US labor and tax laws).

[Americano]

That would be a pretty good analogy.

Nothing unusual there either. Several notable US corporations use the Marianas Islands (US territory) to evade US tax and labor laws. The Republicans have been very strong in supporting this technique, continually giving Marianas exemptions from US labor law (which makes it attractive to US companies seeking to supply the US market and avoid US labor and tax laws).

Which would be why Google is retaining its sales organization on Mainland China. I don't think the Chinese government is nearly as stupid as the US public. This is a throwback to the days of Radio Free (pick a name) with far different technology.

China's next target will be Chinese advertising agencies who control the majority of advertising buys from all media including the Internet.

This reeks of US state department policy 'suggestions' in the form of soft foreign intervention. Google was fine with the censorship agreement until someone decided freedom was more important than market share, an emotional rather than business decision in a global marketplace.

[dilettante]

Honk Kong is a Chinese possession. Would that be the same as China using Puerto Rico to circumvent US Internet censorship of pedophilia?

Does the US require that Google actually filter pedophilia (or anything else) out of its search results?

I don't think government "censorship" in the US and China necessarily works the same way. For example, I doubt that Google.com/ actually filters out anything accessible from Google.com.pr/.

...Google was fine with the censorship agreement until someone decided freedom was more important than market share, an emotional rather than business decision in a global marketplace.

I don't think Google was ever "fine" with the censorship. I just think they were willing to put up with it until the attack on their files, at which point that decided that catering to Chinese restrictions was no longer worth while.

[Americano]

Does the US require that Google actually filter pedophilia (or anything else) out of its search results?

I don't think government "censorship" in the US and China necessarily works the same way. For example, I doubt that Google.com/ actually filters out anything accessible from Google.com.pr/.



I don't think Google was ever "fine" with the censorship. I just think they were willing to put up with it until the attack on their files, at which point that decided that catering to Chinese restrictions was no longer worth while.

From a business standpoint I can't accept that. Not the when the potentially largest single consumer market in the world is at stake. The US has experienced successful, widely publicized hacks deep into military, national security, government and private entity databases and the show goes on. The attacks would be a technical challenge and their business is based on technology.

[dilettante]

From a business standpoint I can't accept that. Not the when the potentially largest single consumer market in the world is at stake...

Can't accept it how? Or rather, it appears that this decision isn't being made "from a business standpoint".

As you've pointed out, it takes considerably stretching to see this as a profitable business move, especially in the long-term. Google itself hasn't made any argument for the 'business sense' of the pull out. I don't see any substantial reason to doubt that this is a case of principle (possibly mixed with emotion and personal umbrage) trumping profit motive. A rare but not unfathomable occurrence....and, IMO, a positive one.

[Americano]

Can't accept it how? Or rather, it appears that this decision isn't being made "from a business standpoint".

As you've pointed out, it takes considerably stretching to see this as a profitable business move, especially in the long-term. Google itself hasn't made any argument for the 'business sense' of the pull out. I don't see any substantial reason to doubt that this is a case of principle (possibly mixed with emotion and personal umbrage) trumping profit motive. A rare but not unfathomable occurrence....and, IMO, a positive one.

As I can't condone personal emotion in business plan decisions, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[dilettante]

As I can't condone personal emotion in business plan decisions, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm not sure I understand what that means.
When you say you "can't condone" it, does that mean you hold it to be morally wrong for a company to act counter its fiscal interests?

I'm honestly quite curious about your line of thought here. If a company announced that, based solely on principle and in defiance of a cost-[fiscal ]benefit analysis, it was abandoning profitable yet exploitative child-labor practices or that it was voluntarily curbing its own environmentally destructive emissions, would you object to their decisions?

[Americano]

I'm not sure I understand what that means.
When you say you "can't condone" it, does that mean you hold it to be morally wrong for a company to act counter its fiscal interests?

I'm honestly quite curious about your line of thought here. If a company announced that, based solely on principle and in defiance of a cost-[fiscal ]benefit analysis, it was abandoning profitable yet exploitative child-labor practices or that it was voluntarily curbing its own environmentally destructive emissions, would you object to their decisions?

Yes. I put myself in the position of investor for business decisions and view no relation to reality in in your scenario. US child labor practices didn't cease until advanced mechanization and the beginning of migration from an agrarian to industrial society eliminated the need for that form of labor. Environmentally destructive US emissions continued unabated until technology reached a point of reducing them in a cost-effective manner. As usual neither instance enjoyed protective legislation until major special interests advanced beyond requiring either form of abuse and used regulation to eliminate competition.

To employ the word principle in condemning a developing nation such as China seems a tad hypocritical when the US employed child labor, unlimited destructive emissions and company towns with complete censorship not all that long ago. It reminds me of a born-again Christian.

[dilettante]

Yes. I put myself in the position of investor for business decisions and view no relation to reality in in your scenario. US child labor practices didn't cease until advanced mechanization and the beginning of migration from an agrarian to industrial society eliminated the need for that form of labor. Environmentally destructive US emissions continued unabated until technology reached a point of reducing them in a cost-effective manner. As usual neither instance enjoyed protective legislation until major special interests advanced beyond requiring either form of abuse and used regulation to eliminate competition.

To employ the word principle in condemning a developing nation such as China seems a tad hypocritical when the US employed child labor, unlimited destructive emissions and company towns with complete censorship not all that long ago. It reminds me of a born-again Christian.

Perhaps.
I suppose what I'm unclear on is if you're condemning corporations (or the US generally) for engaging in cruel exploitation, environmental destruction, oppression and censorship, all in the name of self-interested financial gain AND simultaneously condemning (or at least finding yourself unable to "condone") a company which appears to be doing just the opposite.

I can agree with you that many/most corporations have acted as unprincipled, greedy bastards. And I could agree in condemning unprincipled, greedy bastards for their cruelty, greedy and general bastardry. What I don't understand is then condemning a company for (possibly) engaging in overly-principled, insufficiently-greedy behavior.

[Americano]

Perhaps.
I suppose what I'm unclear on is if you're condemning corporations (or the US generally) for engaging in cruel exploitation, environmental destruction, oppression and censorship, all in the name of self-interested financial gain AND simultaneously condemning (or at least finding yourself unable to "condone") a company which appears to be doing just the opposite.

I can agree with you that many/most corporations have acted as unprincipled, greedy bastards. And I could agree in condemning unprincipled, greedy bastards for their cruelty, greedy and general bastardry. What I don't understand is then condemning a company for (possibly) engaging in overly-principled, insufficiently-greedy behavior.

I don't condemn individuals and corporations for what are now, in the US and other developed countries, considered politically incorrect labor, environmental and censorship practices. It was and is a sign of the times in societal progression, for better or worse. I do condemn Google for not pursuing the Chinese market from within using the "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." analogy. If they can capture that market from Honk Kong without censorship, more power to them, but I don't want to be fed a BS line about leaving a country for technical reasons when existing censorship was at one time acceptable to them.

As a comparison of principles, I certainly condemn the US and its allies for the wanton slaughter and destruction in S. America, Iraq and Afghanistan promoted by the MIC far more than I condemn Chinese censorship.

[dilettante]

I don't condemn individuals and corporations for what are now, in the US and other developed countries, considered politically incorrect labor, environmental and censorship practices. It was and is a sign of the times in societal progression, for better or worse. I do condemn Google for not pursuing the Chinese market from within using the "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." analogy.

What if the "Romans" in question are bloodthirsty, racist, slave-owning rapists? The Chinese aren't; I'm just pushing the analogy to get to the heart of it, but you get the idea. If government political censorship is bad (and I suppose I'm assuming that we agree that it is, correct me if I'm wrong) how is refusing to participate in it also bad?

And what's so sacred about the Chinese market (or profit generally) that refusing to sacrifice ethical principles to pursue it is worthy of condemnation? I could understand the argument that 'Google is not obligated to stand for principle-over-profit in China.' I'm utterly perplexed by the argument of 'Google is obligated stand for profit-over-principle in China.'

If they can capture that market from Honk Kong without censorship, more power to them, but I don't want to be fed a BS line about leaving a country for technical reasons when existing censorship was at one time acceptable to them.

Then what do you think their motivation was? If you don't accept their claims that the cyber attacks caused them to re-evaluate their willingness to participate in censorship, and, as you've pointed out, there isn't a viable profit motive here, then what else is there?


As a comparison of principles, I certainly condemn the US and its allies for the wanton slaughter and destruction in S. America, Iraq and Afghanistan promoted by the MIC far more than I condemn Chinese censorship.

I agree.
But do you condemn the MIC itself for promoting the wanton slaughter and destruction, even though doing so makes perfect 'business sense' and, evidently, is a viable means to pursuing economic rewards?

[Michael]

Which would be why Google is retaining its sales organization on Mainland China. I don't think the Chinese government is nearly as stupid as the US public. This is a throwback to the days of Radio Free (pick a name) with far different technology.

China's next target will be Chinese advertising agencies who control the majority of advertising buys from all media including the Internet.

This reeks of US state department policy 'suggestions' in the form of soft foreign intervention. Google was fine with the censorship agreement until someone decided freedom was more important than market share, an emotional rather than business decision in a global marketplace.

As I noted earlier, I don't think this particular business decision is being driven by 'emotion' at the expense of a rational drive to maximize shareholder profits. I do believe that is it highly probable that Google may be making this move in an effort to defend Google's medium to long term position from a PR perspective. The western economies are where Google rules and makes most of their profits, thought they certainly are global. Google has an enviable PR position almost rivaling that of Apple for fanaticism. That kind of brand-driving power is enormous and priceless. It is also very difficult to achieve and VERY easy to lose. I think Google Incorporated has their eyes firmly on the core value of their brand name - and the Chinese Government deal certainly put a stain on the Google brand - the kind of stain that has the potential to turn Google into Alta Vista. It is very possible that Google has been just slow to realize the harm this was doing to their brand and are now moving quickly to minimize the damage and attempt a recovery. If they do that successfully, it could make their brand stronger in the long run.

Remember, Google is born of Silicon Valley under the motto of 'do no evil'. They are 'edgy' and cool in America and therefore in the mainstream global village that is modern technology. That's huge and massively valuable. Google will never have that kind of cultural power in China so why bother selling your soul for a few Chinese billions when that might unravel the whole 'mystique' of Google's brand popularity in America?

On this basis, I see Google's decision as one potentially driven by bottom line concerns, not some emotional grandstanding on a political issue.

[Americano]

What if the "Romans" in question are bloodthirsty, racist, slave-owning rapists? The Chinese aren't; I'm just pushing the analogy to get to the heart of it, but you get the idea. If government political censorship is bad (and I suppose I'm assuming that we agree that it is, correct me if I'm wrong) how is refusing to participate in it also bad?

And what's so sacred about the Chinese market (or profit generally) that refusing to sacrifice ethical principles to pursue it is worthy of condemnation? I could understand the argument that 'Google is not obligated to stand for principle-over-profit in China.' I'm utterly perplexed by the argument of 'Google is obligated stand for profit-over-principle in China.'

Correct me if I'm making a false assumption but I as I understand it you favor ideological principle for all matters while I separate that from commerce, which in my mind is subject to prevailing ideology within sovereign borders and international agreements.

Then what do you think their motivation was? If you don't accept their claims that the cyber attacks caused them to re-evaluate their willingness to participate in censorship, and, as you've pointed out, there isn't a viable profit motive here, then what else is there?

That's the piece I'm missing. Today's announcement that Google Internet servers will operate from Hong Kong while they retain business interests on mainland China pushes the situation to Micheal's analogy of US business interests using US territories to avoid US legislation.


I agree.
But do you condemn the MIC itself for promoting the wanton slaughter and destruction, even though doing so makes perfect 'business sense' and, evidently, is a viable means to pursuing economic rewards?

It hasn't made business sense since post-ww2. The pillage has produced no loot for other than a very few interested parties and bloated the military to a ridiculous stage of waste.

[dilettante]

Correct me if I'm making a false assumption but I as I understand it you favor ideological principle for all matters while I separate that from commerce, which in my mind is subject to prevailing ideology within sovereign borders and international agreements.


I suppose just don't think that calling something 'business' (or commerce) somehow makes otherwise unethical activity perfectly OK. And I generally applaud those who stand up for what they believe is right, even though it costs them something financially (I don't know if this is the case with Google or not).

I got the impression that you were depicting ever larger markets and greater profits as the highest possible pursuit and condemning Google for forsaking it in favor of other concerns (be that principles or something else). That would also be an ideology, although not a commonly advocated one, and I was perplexed.

To be honest, I still really understand what your objections are, and I'm still curious. But I don't mean to this into some sort of inquisition or act like you have to justify your views to me.

[Americano]

I suppose just don't think that calling something 'business' (or commerce) somehow makes otherwise unethical activity perfectly OK. And I generally applaud those who stand up for what they believe is right, even though it costs them something financially (I don't know if this is the case with Google or not).

While I personally disagree with government censorship, I don't feel compliance by a business entity in a country practicing censorship is unethical.

I got the impression that you were depicting ever larger markets and greater profits as the highest possible pursuit and condemning Google for forsaking it in favor of other concerns (be that principles or something else). That would also be an ideology, although not a commonly advocated one, and I was perplexed.

I did condemn Google's abrupt change in internal policy for those very reasons and stated in the OP that I felt I was missing something that contributed to their decision. Their subsequent announcement of relocating Chinese Internet operations to Hong Kong to avoid China's formal censorship, which would still require quasi-government approval, made me feel Google hadn't abandoned that market, it had merely shifted strategy in a manner acceptable to China and Google.

To be honest, I still really understand what your objections are, and I'm still curious. But I don't mean to this into some sort of inquisition or act like you have to justify your views to me.

I still feel any business entity domiciled in one country and operating in another country is subject to policies in the country of operations. As a shareholder I would be very upset if capital investment and revenue was abandoned for an abrupt change based only on ideological principle never condoned in the country of operation.

[Americano]

Here's (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-china-google25-2010mar25,0,6666311.story)an article discussing China's market potential and Google's position.

[Zarquon]

I agree with Michael on this one, it would appear that this is being done to maintain their reputation amongst their western user-base. But you never know.

[Americano]

I agree with Michael on this one, it would appear that this is being done to maintain their reputation amongst their western user-base. But you never know.

After how many years of ongoing compliance with China's censorship including significant market share gain? I can't imagine their western users suddenly having an impact on that decision. It just doesn't make sense. As you state we'll probably never know what factors actually prompted the change in direction.

[Donkey]

I literally can't comprehend the kind of compartmentalization you are advocating, Americano. Simply because it is popular and possible, not to mention profitable, for corporations to be evil does not mean that it is morally acceptable. If so, morals are meaningless.

Regardless of their motives (and I'm inclined to agree with Michael on this), google should be applauded for reversing their previous sycophantic pro-censorship position. If they have the "don't be evil" attitude, and they play by the don't be evil rules, then it doesn't matter if they do so to make a couple of bucks.

[Americano]

I literally can't comprehend the kind of compartmentalization you are advocating, Americano. Simply because it is popular and possible, not to mention profitable, for corporations to be evil does not mean that it is morally acceptable. If so, morals are meaningless.

Warren Buffet, other Americans and global corporations certainly have no qualms about widespread investment in China and accepting their parameters. Are they all, in your opinion, evil? Morality has a fluid definition dependent on individual perspective and purpose.

Regardless of their motives (and I'm inclined to agree with Michael on this), google should be applauded for reversing their previous sycophantic pro-censorship position. If they have the "don't be evil" attitude, and they play by the don't be evil rules, then it doesn't matter if they do so to make a couple of bucks.

Everyone has definitions of heroes and not all are alike.

[Michael]

Warren Buffet, other Americans and global corporations certainly have no qualms about widespread investment in China and accepting their parameters. Are they all, in your opinion, evil? Morality has a fluid definition dependent on individual perspective and purpose.



Everyone has definitions of heroes and not all are alike.
The investor class has no morality at all. They count only profits and morality be damned. These are the people who run society.

The non-investor class does like indulge their morality from time to time. They are the vast majority of the populace. They tend to take moral issues a bit more seriously.

Google's wealth (and continued wealth) comes from being popular with the second group, not the first.

That second group can turn on you if you aren't careful with your moral standing.

Indeed, Nike and The Body Shoppe are classic examples of companies that have cultivated progressive/moral branding and then suffered when the truth of their immorality became public. I believe LuLu Lemon is another more current example of the same phenomenon. I think Google is highly sensitive (and vulnerable) to this dynamic.

The motto of "do no evil" and the deal with China just didn't square with each other. This was causing a big hit for Google's brand. They obviously didn't see that coming, but I think they see it now.

[Donkey]

Warren Buffet, other Americans and global corporations certainly have no qualms about widespread investment in China and accepting their parameters. Are they all, in your opinion, evil? Morality has a fluid definition dependent on individual perspective and purpose.

Short answer?

Yes, absolutely.

[Americano]

Short answer?

Yes, absolutely.

Given your ideological stance, I'd expect nothing less and admire your commitment.

[Michael]

Warren Buffet, other Americans and global corporations certainly have no qualms about widespread investment in China and accepting their parameters. Are they all, in your opinion, evil? Morality has a fluid definition dependent on individual perspective and purpose.
Warren Buffet, et al, did not publicly proclaim "do no evil" as their motto.

I think it is fair to judge people by their own standards. Google was the one who proclaimed "do no evil" - no one forced them to make that moral statement. But once they made it, they are expected to live by it or be ridiculed for failing. That was Google's choice.

[Americano]

Warren Buffet, et al, did not publicly proclaim "do no evil" as their motto.

I think it is fair to judge people by their own standards. Google was the one who proclaimed "do no evil" - no one forced them to make that moral statement. But once they made it, they are expected to live by it or be ridiculed for failing. That was Google's choice.

A choice hedged by Google establishing an uncensored Internet server in Hong Kong, Google retaining all but Internet server business operations on Mainland China and not one word from the US State Department congratulating Google on their whatever it was declaration. I smell a very complicated deal being cut.

[Michael]

A choice hedged by Google establishing an uncensored Internet server in Hong Kong, Google retaining all but Internet server business operations on Mainland China and not one word from the US State Department congratulating Google on their whatever it was declaration. I smell a very complicated deal being cut.
Google hedging the the China market with HK obviously makes sense for Google. There's no public issue for Google (or anyone else) doing business in China. That's just business.

But some people (not government) seriously do object to Google signing censorship agreements with the Chinese government. That crosses an invisible line of morality - specifically because of Google's public "do no evil" motto/principle that allegedly defines the company. In this respect, Google can "do no evil" or Google can do censorship deals with the Chinese government - it can't do both. Google must 'pick one' or Google becomes just another hypocritical corporate bullshit machine. Bye-bye 'king of Silcon cool'.

As for the US State Department (who have NEVER been known for high moral principles), I'd be horrified if the Secretary of State were to reference Google by name in such a way. That would be highly improper and foolish. I think Google would freakout too. Not to mention, Chinese officials would go to town with that kind of declaration. :erm:

[proxious]

let us see how google acts

[willssmith]

But since the Chinese Government can not be claimed to know the thinking being behind or space never agreed with the attacks, the (information) for everyone to stand on their own through Google, I admit that I found it easier to get in on the issue of going to olabilirbiri in the claim that the high ground. The attempted undo cut, but they can hit China's censorship policy back by dragging it to the international spot unpopular.