
On Google and China: Am I Missing Something? Why all the high fives? - dbreunig
http://dbreunig.tumblr.com/post/331687932/on-google-china
======
jerf
A single person can take one action for two different contradictory reasons.
How much more so a company of thousands. This neither negates the good reasons
nor washes away the bad ones, but nevertheless, we applaud because we approve
of the action.

Besides, look around. How many companies would even pretend to do this for
moral reasons? We've legally mandated moral cowardice in our corporations (by
mandating that they must increase shareholder value above all else), and to
see a company even pay lip service as a reason to something else is
refreshing.

(Though if they don't follow through and either provide an uncensored feed or
truly leave soon, it will just be lip service.)

Those who still say that Google's hardly an angel here, I refer you to my
previous statement about how we've mandated moral cowardice; is it really a
surprise that this step could only be taken in addition to other "ulterior
motives"? It would be illegal for Google to just pull out of a market because
they were offended, and they could face shareholder lawsuits. In the end they
must still believe this is a profitable move. (If only to contain losses
caused by espionage...) But they have other options, "suck it up" being among
them, so there is still at least a smidgen of courage here.

------
meterplech
Having ulterior motives doesn't necessarily make something wrong. Even if
Google had business and other reasons to stop censuring and get out of the
market the lasting effect is to focus peoples' attention on Chinese human
rights violations.

Sure- it might in the end help Google too, but that doesn't mean it isn't
worth applauding.

~~~
netcan
Quite the opposite.

If a company has figured out how to give some of its profits to helping social
cause X solve social problem y, that's great but ultimately sustainable only
on the margins of our economic world. If this company has figured out how to
make money from social cause X solve social problem y they'll do as much of
that as they can. Other companies will join in. Social cause x will be far
more helped.

You can always say that companies ultimately want to make money. Politicians
ultimately want to get elected, preserve legacy, ego or whatever. Private
people are only motivated by a desire to make themselves feel good, important,
powerful, create a legacy, etc. etc.

You can always go back and question reasons. For serious movers you can
usually find "ulterior" motives.

We applaud how politicians get elected. We applaud how companies choose to
pursue agendas. That's all their is.

* It seems improbable to me that Google is ultimately motivated by a desire to protect IP.

------
protez
Business is not civil rights movement. Even if a human rights activist builds
a business, compromise has to be taken time to time for its primary purpose as
a business entity and it's more complex matter than something anyone can
simply call hypocritical. Therefore, I highly appreciate Google for having
made the difficult decision this time, encouraging it to make more in the
future.

~~~
elblanco
Right, google's mantra is "do no evil" which is worlds different than "do
good".

~~~
jessep
I believe the motto is "Don't be evil." I keep seeing "Do no evil" in places,
including on large news sites, which is odd, because it completely lacks the
sense of humor of "Don't be evil."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_be_evil>

~~~
EricBurnett
I get nothing on that link. Perhaps
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil> ?

------
sukuriant
"Because, worst of all, Google is effectively walking away. A human rights
situation that they could have had a voice in is abandoned."

If the firewall entirely blocks Google, what more could they do? From what I
gathered, the Chinese would have to effectively make it impossible to access
Google, and at that point, what more can the company do? Sure they can try and
invent ways to circumvent the firewall, but do you expect them to do that? If
not, don't call that walking away.

~~~
dtf
Interesting that there has been no response from Beijing yet. We're all
waiting for them to add the now-unfiltered google.cn to the firewall, but
doing so would be in some way accepting Google's argument - making them look
weak. I guess their best option would be to make no formal response to
Google's allegations, leave the site unblocked for a few weeks until everyone
loses interest, and then block it on a routine batch with a load of other
sites... ideally when something more important has just happened in the rest
of the world.

------
wallflower
> Privacy and Security. Google is committed to protecting consumer privacy and
> confidentiality. Prior to the launch of Google.cn, Google conducted
> intensive reviews of each of our services to assess the implications of
> offering it directly in China. We are always conscious of the fact that data
> may be subject to the jurisdiction of the country where it is physically
> stored. With that in mind, we concluded that, at least initially, only a
> handful of search engine services would be hosted in China.

We will not store data somewhere unless we are confident that we can meet our
expectations for the privacy and security of users’ sensitive information. As
a practical matter, meeting this user interest means that we have no plans to
host Gmail, Blogger, and a range of other such services in China.

[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-
in...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/testimony-internet-in-
china.html)

------
kls
Good or Bad, right or wrong, it is possible that this will have a
psychological impact on other multi-national corporations, in which they will
realize that they don't have to deal with China on China's terms.

I have a different take on the whole China thing and I believe that until the
Chinese people bring about change that China has the right as a sovereign
nation, to set any rules they want and that if American businesses don't like
it then they should leave.

This is a huge problem with America, our business men "explore new markets" in
some tin pot dictators land and that tin pot dictator, as usual, does
something that big Amari-corp does not like and the we send in the cavalry.
When in reality the corporation should have packed up and went home and told
Mr. Tin Pot that they will be back when he can act appropriate.

No matter what the motive was, I commend Google for not lobbying and wasting
American tax dollars to protect their business interest in a foreign land and
for realizing that if the terms are not agreeable, the proper thing to do is
leave the market no try to impose you will via governmental and military
influence.

I hope that it will sever as an example to other businesses that they can
leave a market if the terms are not agreeable. If enough do this, then it will
surely bring about reform.

~~~
DavidSJ
_I have a different take on the whole China thing and I believe that until the
Chinese people bring about change that China has the right as a sovereign
nation, to set any rules they want_

Does this view extend, say, to the German and Soviet regimes of the mid 20th
century?

~~~
bena
I will hesitantly say yes.

However, Germany decided to encroach upon the sovereignty of other nations.
This is where the line is crossed. And the USSR did change from the inside.

If you spend your whole life waiting for someone to save you instead of saving
yourself, you will lead a life of desperate misery.

~~~
DavidSJ
By what criteria should one decide the boundaries and rulers of a nation? If
someone with lots of guns takes over the state of Texas right now and declares
that he can do anything he wants due to national sovereignty, will you respect
that claim?

------
ned
As Mark Hall noted on his blog (<http://mhallville.com/2010/01/13/google-
china/>) the debate seems to have polarized between two camps: the moralists
and the cynics.

Lost in the noise is the fact that the Chinese government is not longer only
censoring and intermittently blocking Google sites, they are now actively
attacking the infrastructure. That has a business cost.

------
joe_the_user
_I’m just left frustrated by those rallying around the move. Because, worst of
all, Google is effectively walking away. A human rights situation that they
could have had a voice._

Sorry to be idealistic but I think Google _is_ having a strong voice. Google
will likely to reachable to those enterprising enough to get past the great
firewall.

If Google had just wanted to walk away, there are a thousand other ways they
could have done this.

------
geedee77
Any large company who does a seemingly good act is almost always motivated by
how it will enhance the business to do it.

Google stopping censorship will make most people think "Google really are a
nice caring company" which will make them want to use them instead of "evil"
Microsoft etc.

People who don't understand this either don't really understand big business
or have never been around a large company before.

~~~
carbon8
Corporate social responsibility
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility>) is an
increasingly popular concept in management and the benefits to a company can
be as abstract as enhancing market position or PR. It makes perfect sense for
a company like Google to take a risky, socially responsible move like this for
the reasons they've publicly stated (and note that the implied reasons did
also include issues related to infrastructure and IP security). While we don't
know exactly what their motives are, I see no reason to believe that they are
vastly different than what google has stated.

Don't forget that the core elements of google's corporate identity, regardless
of whether it's just an ideal, are "do no evil" and "to organize the world's
information and make it universally accessible and useful." I have no doubt
that at least some executives as google, almost certainly including sergey and
larry, feel that maintaining this corporate identity is important.

------
shawndrost
Google's leadership is taking a strong stance against China. A stronger one
than governments are willing to take[1]. If they're prioritizing ethics over
the profits of the company, they're just an anomaly. The responsible parties
could be fired for stating so, since the stockholders employ them to
prioritize the profits of the company over all other non-legal concerns.

If they're doing it because it increases their profits, then it is bigger
news: it means "Don't be evil" works. The market is more closely aligned with
"bettering the world" than most people believe. Corporations have always
seemed less ethical than governments in the past, so it's a very exciting
possibility.

The author argues that Google's actions in China were not motivated by ethics.
Unlike the author, I think that is an exciting thought.

[1] At least in the last 20 years or so.

~~~
barry-cotter
_Corporations have always seemed less ethical than governments in the past, so
it's a very exciting possibility._

Yes, and that's why corporations have killed far more people and blighted far
more lives in the past X years than governments.

~~~
cellis
Please examine the complexity of the above statement.

~~~
barry-cotter
Corporations (legal but not natural persons) have historically caused less
deaths than states (sovereign entities with a monopoly on the legitimate use
of violence.) In this meaning states too are corporations just a special type.

Joint stock corporations without a defined end of life are an innovation
dating from approximately 1500. I contend that on a net, and probably a gross
accounting of lives lost due to action by states have consistently outnumbered
those due to corporations.

Given that states have a monopoly on violence it is a trivial consequence that
their actions will cause more deaths than corporate actions. Sovereign actors
typically exceed non-sovereign ones in capability for violence. Even where
this is not true the corporation is constrained by the will of it's sponsor
state, and as such ultimate responsibility lies with the state sponsor of the
corporation.

Given that we have no examples of sovereign corporations (sub-type, profit
maximising) little information is contained in my original snarky comment. I
contend, in agreement with the Emperor of the Rightwing Wingnutosphere Mencius
Moldbug, that a sovereign entity with a clear goal of profit seeking will be
less murderous than one without a clearly defined and measurable goal (all of
them, barring the Holy See, which aims to convert all humanity to Roman
Catholicism.)

 _tl:dr Given the vast differences in capabilty between sovereign and non-
sovereign corporations the difference in their headcounts is a trivial
consequence. Conceded._

------
johnaspden
Because 'don't be evil' is one thing (a good thing).

But here they seem to be going for 'do the right thing', which is a whole
different plan.

This will cost them, at least short term. That's part of what 'the right
thing' means.

Originally they said they believed that collaborating would do more good than
not doing.

Now they are saying that they no longer believe that, and will no longer
collaborate.

I am sceptical, but I still applaud it.

We can be cynical too. Let us show them that those sort of actions are
appreciated.

For instance, their share price is falling. Let those who are keen on real
altruism buy shares to drive it back up.

Perhaps we can create a climate where good corporate behaviour is actually
profitable, and where corporations and governments fear to be caught in the
act of evil.

------
s3graham
> Because, worst of all, Google is effectively walking away. A human rights
> situation that they could have had a voice in is abandoned. The only losers
> in this debacle are the Chinese people.

So far they've actually only done the "voice" part, not the walking away.

But I agree, Joe Zhongguo is probably the loser either way.

------
tmsh
Well said. Reminds me of Google's recent investment in power:

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870485490457464...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704854904574644721659940760.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular)

Seems more strategic than humanitarian, though mainstream reporters rarely
seem to see through it. That said, I like and admire a lot of what Googles
does. And I think they have a lot of good intentions.

It's just that when you try to pass off your actions as humanitarian, when
really that is not the whole story, it always comes back to bite you in the
end (simply because any type of duplicity adds entropy into the system).
Pulling out of China and missing those huge opportunities, financially and
morally, is an example of something that might trip them up in the long run.

~~~
pavs
What gave you the impression that their investment in power was humanitarian?
Where did Google claim that their decision in investing in green power was
altruistic?

Read Google interview here regarding investment on green power:
[http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/qa-googles-
gree...](http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/qa-googles-green-energy-
czar/)

They are very upfront about this being an investment in R&D where the primary
focus will be to be carbon neutral for their data-centers and offices, which
might lead to other business opportunity.

Just because you have a wrong interpretation of actual events, doesn't make
them wrong.

~~~
tmsh
That interview isn't bad. But take the first sentence of this article:

'Google Inc (GOOG.O) has asked the main U.S. energy regulator for authority to
trade electricity in the wholesale market, which will make it easier for the
Internet search giant to obtain renewable energy to power its huge data
centers as part of its green initiative.'

[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN086928720100108?type=mar...](http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN086928720100108?type=marketsNews)

Most other articles in Google News under the heading for 'google power' begin
similarly.

[http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&cf=all&...](http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&cf=all&ncl=dj_LvJVwkKMUUtMPn9DnY73Ik_R2M)

A more factual, 'actual events'-oriented article might begin:

'Google Inc (GOOG.O) has asked the main U.S. energy regulator for authority to
trade electricity in the wholesale market, which will make it easier for the
Internet search giant to obtain cheap energy.'

I.e., real reporting shouldn't be about what Google 'plans' to do, or how good
their intentions are. Real reporting is -- what have they done? What they've
done is apply for status as a wholesale trader of energy so that they can get
energy more cheaply.

Maybe they have good intentions with green energy, maybe they have good
intentions in China. But it's easy to confuse their intentions and miss what
actually has been done.

Though on the other hand, perhaps you're correct. Perhaps Google makes no
claims to be 'humanitarian' or 'altruistic' etc. But by trying to pass the
thing off as 'green' and 'carbon-neutral', it's easy to give them a free pass,
i.e., some sort of unique status that will allow them to get energy more
cheaply than everyone else.

~~~
pavs
> But by trying to pass the thing off as 'green' and 'carbon-neutral', it's
> easy to give them a free pass,

Their approach _is_ green renewal energy and their goal _is_ to go carbon-
neutral; they are not trying to "pass" it as such or being pretentious about
it. This _is_ how they are approaching it for real.

Please read the interview link I provided.

There is nothing altruistic and humanitarian or pretention about their
intention; its just good business. Good PR is icing on the cake.

~~~
tmsh
Ah, I now think you are generally right.

It is good to keep a check on becoming too enamored with Google's plans
though. I mention this because I actually do care a lot about Google's role in
the next decade, etc. Like anyone who is ambitious, they are arguably
sometimes a little too precocious for their own good. And sometimes they make
mistakes, but sometimes they get away with things because we want to believe
they are always doing the right thing. But that can encourage bad,
unsustainable behavior. Speaking about things VERY GENERALLY, but I'd just as
soon they avoid that.

I'm thinking even as far back as Google's somewhat novel IPO. Or their Google
Books situation. There's this idea that gets promulgated during these events
that somehow they're doing things completely differently than a normal
corporation. That there is nothing particularly 'corporate' in the traditional
sense about what they're doing. I don't know. It just has never really sounded
completely clear to me. But maybe that's just me.

------
pragmatic
An American for profit corporation is by law required to make money for it's
investors. It has no obligation to be a human rights watch group.

The Chinese people are responsible for their government. Not Google.

~~~
Patient0
This is a valid legal point, but not a valid moral one.

In a normal society, we recognize that being "legal" and being "moral" are
different things, and that you cannot and generally shouldn't try to legislate
for morality.

We expect individual citizens to behave both legally _and_ morally. This means
we sometimes expect citizens to do something that isn't strictly required by
law (e.g. assisting someone who has been in a car accident rather than just
driving by).

In law though, corporations are also "citizens" - but they have an additional
obligation to act solely in the best interests of their shareholders (the
shareholders can sue the directors for not doing this).

So we're left with a society in which all corporations not only are, but are
legally _required_ to be sociopaths.

There's a docufilm called "The Corporation" that makes this point fairly well.

