There is nothing wrong with a company seeking to enter new markets especially that their absence from these countries doesn't change a thing.
I mean, this is clearly wrong. You may not draw the line at China's human rights abuses, but you would probably draw the line somewhere. Maybe at a country that trades child slaves? Would it be ok for Google to create a special version of their search engine that only says good things about child slavery in order to "enter a new market"?
Just because a company's activities can be reduced to a P&L statement doesn't mean corporations' activities have no moral dimension, or that they are somehow beyond moral judgement.
Additionally, your flippant dismissal of "silly hypotheticals" is particularly misplaced. Maybe read about some of the things they've done to the Falun Gong and what occurred at Tiananmen square. These aren't small abuses that can be overlooked, and no American company should be complicit in helping the Chinese government keep these things quiet.
Search is their business and they won't be allowed to conduct it there without censorship.
The vast majority of search queries have little to do with the conduct of the Chinese government, and if you hadn't noticed Google's absence from china didn't liberate the Chinese people.
Right. Nor should they if that is the cost of doing business. Sometimes there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.
> if you hadn't noticed Google's absence from china didn't liberate the Chinese people.
"I haven't been helping any thieves for the last decade, but robberies still keep happening. I might as well get in on it and make some money."
Sorry, but I have a hard time taking your arguments seriously. You seem to be working very hard to miss the point.
You're making Habitue's argument for them.
This is basically equivalent that corporations can do no wrong as long as it is in a "new market". This is ludicrous.