Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

I would be happier--well, less unhappy--with this situation if Google had created a wholly-owned Chinese subsidiary that did not use Google's trademarks to handle requests coming from China, and let that subsidiary follow whatever rules China insisted on imposing for censoring search results.

Seth, what would your proposal make better?

Google's position may be principled to a degree (and in particular, a degree or so better than others), but it really makes no difference. Even if Google were to return completely unfiltered results, access to the links themselves would be filtered at the infrastructure level. If you have the opportunity to spend a little time with Ron Diebert of the OpenNet Initiative, you'll hear the degree to which the 'net is becoming, in his words, "islands of sovereign spaces carved out from cyberspace." I've blogged a presentation that he gave recently. It was an eye-opener, and casts an additional light on this issue.

Google can do what they want, but they really need to change their motto to from "Do no Evil" to "Minimize Evil". The hypocracy of keeping that motto will be spectacular.

"Most of what we do is morally mixed. The consequences aren't unambiguously good and our intentions are never pure."

Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself of something. Bottom line is Google did not have to become the actual implementors of political censorship, but they chose too, they are trading blood for AdSense. And there's no big gain here for freedom lovers in China to have access to a limited-but-faster Google, that is rationalization. So I'd say "shame on them", but it would be understatement, since the correlate of political censorship is murder.

I like Google, but if Google can be persuaded to censor the results they feed into China, they can be persuaded to censor elsewhere. It's like that old saying - you can't get a little bit pregnant.

Here is something I found interesting:

Back in September 2005, Baidu, the Chinese search engine, came to market in New York, and it was such a hot stock - hitting $153 a share - that people thought it signalled the beginning of another dot com-like era since Baidu were somewhat lacking in the fundamentals, e.g., revenue. I thought at the time that it was just another hot concept that in Baidu's case combined technology with that age-old Western dream of gaining access to a billion people to sell them something, whether it's goods, information or religion. Western businesspeople and missionaries have been seduced by this dream for centuries, but it's never been realized and in my view never will. The Chinese will smile and take our money but China will remain China, run by the Chinese.

My point in mentioning this is that I read with curiosity that even Google had invested in Baidu and thought ... all that know-how for free. In fact, Google paid Baidu to provide it - a simultaneous picking of pockets and picking of brains!

Now we hear that Google has agreed to censor search results in China. I understand that at times in business it's necessary to compromise, particularly when the rewards are made to look so promising and there are strong, cash-rich competitors on the horizon, but if your only principle is continued access to potential rewards and you are willing to subordinate everything else you claimed you aspired to in return for that, then I wonder how qualified you are to be trusted with the world's information.

I'm not sure it is complex. There are things that clearly matter more than potential profit. Freedom, certainly freedom of information, is one of them.

Noel, of course I agree that doing wrong in order to make money is a bad thing. But because life is complex, I think we can't look at this only as an economic decision. Google enunciated principles other than the selfish ones that you, Noel, allude to in your last two paragraphs. You don't address those arguments.

I'm a consequentialist on this topic. I don't see how Google's refusing to provide any information to the Chinese helps the Chinese more than providing censored information, especially if Google does indeed point out the fact of censorship. As my post says, I'm not unmixed in my feelings, but I think I'd decide the same way Google did because of the balance of good and bad consequences.

If I thought an information embargo would help end China's tyranny, I'd agree with you.

Brad, I'm not trying to convince myself of anything. In fact, in the first draft of this post, I disagreed with Google's decision. But as I wrote, I changed my mind.

I don't care about Google's bottom line. If making money was the only reason for them to censor Chinese results, then I'd agree with you wholeheartedly and without reservation. But I care more about the consequences for the Chinese than I do about Google's revenues or about Google's purity.

My judgment about what will be best for the Chinese may certainly be wrong. My facts and my suppositions may be way off. But, if they're not, then I think Google made the right decision.

David, would you object if the United States government did a deal with Google to only feature articles positive to George Bush? Would you suspect that the motive behind a large publicly quoted company (not providing sewing machines or electric tooth whiteners, but something as valuable as access to information and ideas) agreeing to that sort of censorship might be a desire for profit?

I do understand the argument for some information is better than no information, but agreeing to censor information won't help end the Chinese government's tyranny. I do not think it is a good idea to go along with censoring information according to the government’s wishes, any government. When something like that becomes accepted practice - and Microsoft and Yahoo are happy to help this along - good luck getting rid of it in the future.

There is no doubt that the Chinese government are very clever and know how to leverage access to their emerging market. I do not see Google showing any principle here unless you can consider not excluding themselves from potential opportunity to be principled.

Noel, of course Google has self-interested reasons for this decision. I don't care about those reasons because, as we all agree, companies can't justify immoral actions by pointing to their bottom line.

Censoring info won't help end Chinese tyranny, but that's not all Google is doing. Putting in a note that censoring is happening seems to me to be a positive good, as does putting in a link to the US version. As Rebecca says, we should see if they make good on those ideas.

And if Google stays out of China, how would that help end Chinese tyranny? Even if all non-Chinese search engines boycotted China, do you think that would pressure China into changing its ways? I don't. They'd happily go forward with Baidu.

So, for me it comes down to a practical question (not a question of principle): What will best help the Chinese people? I don't think this is an easy question and I have litle confidence that my judgment is right about this. But, so far it seems to me marginally better that Google enter China the way it is (censoring but noting that fact) than withdrawing from it entirely.

Also, because I know Andrew McLaughlin, I'm convinced in a way that you're not that Google considered this not simply from their bottom-line point of view. But Google's intentions are less interesting to me than its effects.

Your point is reasonable. However, things like this don't stay fixed in one spot. Google have now agreed that it is okay to censor in one country. If you like, they have set a precedent. If it's okay to censor in China, why not somewhere else?

An argument could be made, in the interests of national security for example, that it would be only common sense for Google to omit certain sites or certain kinds of information from its engine that the US government (or any government) said were a threat. In the future, maybe your government or my government will want to censor for whatever reason access to the information Google provides. They would have a stronger case because Google have already agreed to censor in one place. So okay, they'll put a sign up on your search results, something like: 'In the interests of National Security, your search results were censored."

How would you feel about that?