NEWS - What should Google do?
About a month ago, I posted an article defending the actions Google took to enter the Chinese market. A reader asked me,
I can understand Chris Santoro's confusion--because I did say,"I don't think Google should censor its results," and at the same time, I defended Google when they did just that. I suppose part of the confusion stems from the fact I'm not sure what they should do.
To clarify, I believe the Chinese laws mandating censorship are unjust. Any unjust law leaves people (and, by extension, businesses) with two choices--obey the law, or disobey it and risk the consequences. In this particular case, the Chinese government is violating its citizens' rights by demanding censorship--because governments have no right to censor information. (I don't want to digress into a long explanation of why that is here--if enough readers question this as a premise, I can discuss my basis for that belief elsewhere.) While governments have no right to censor (or to order others to do so), Google is not under an obligation to provide information--uncensored or otherwise. In that sense, Google is doing nothing immoral if they either break the Chinese law, or if they obey it.
While Google is not doing anything wrong in a moral sense when they censor their search results, I should point out that they are contradicting their own stated mission, "...to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." In complying with those laws, they are violating that mission; that mission, however, is not a moral mandate--it's simply their desired goal. Because they're going against that goal--a goal I consider to be desirable--I'd be inclined to say they should not comply with the law, even at the expense of not doing business in China.
That, however, is easy to say, since I don't have to pay that expense. Google, as a public company, also has a mandate to be profitable. The Chinese market is a large and fast growing market. If Google were to wait until China changed its laws, the delay in entering that market would harm their entry into that market, violate the mandate to make profits for their shareholders.
One might argue that Google, through their compliance, is helping the Chinese government commit the injustice. To an extent, that's true, and, ultimately--more than their violation of their mission statement--that's why I tend to think they're taking the wrong course with China. Their role in the injustice, however, is minor--the facts that they're not the ones who created the situation, and that there are other companies who would cooperate with the Chinese government both mean that if Google refused to cooperate, it would do little or nothing to end the injustice. If every other effective search engine were refusing to deal with China, and Google were the only company violating the boycott, then their action would be very potent aid to that regime and worthy of condemnation. However, the fact that other companies are assisting the Chinese government considerably mitigates their action. More to the point, while they may be collaborating with the unjust regime, Google is not directly harming anyone on their own--they are simply guilty of the inaction of not resisting the injustice through their self-censorship. Remember, while their stated intent is to provide information, but there is no moral mandate for them to do so.
It's undeniable that the real victims of the Chinese government's censorship demands are the people of China--who are denied legal access to information they have every right to, but it's also true that Google is another victim (as are the other search engines in China). After all--if they could provide uncensored access to information, they would be more useful, and therefore would be used more often, and therefore would be more profitable. Instead, the Chinese government forces them to choose between providing compromised information and therefore diminished profits or simply not participating in the Chinese market. Criticizing Google for choosing the former of those two poor choices is somewhat like criticizing a mugging victim for encouraging crime by not fighting off his armed assailant. That analogy isn't perfect: the hypothetical mugging victim does nothing wrong in handing over his wallet, while Google's compliance with its "mugger" is a little more active. (Hence my willingness to be somewhat critical of their actions.)
In the end, I tend to think Google made the incorrect decision in the case of choosing to censor Google.cn. However, I'm not convinced they acted immorally, and I'm not even certain their decision was incorrect all things considered.
"I dont [sic] understand how you can say that you don't think that Google should censor its results and at the same time defend Google for censoring its results (i.e. for doing business in China, which requires the censorship of results). What do you really mean by this, and if you dont think they should censor their results, what do you think it is that they should do?"The first thing I should say, is "thank you." I'm glad to know I'm being read by people who aren't either friends I urged onto my site or spammers who post comments without reading my articles. I'm glad to have readers!
I can understand Chris Santoro's confusion--because I did say,"I don't think Google should censor its results," and at the same time, I defended Google when they did just that. I suppose part of the confusion stems from the fact I'm not sure what they should do.
To clarify, I believe the Chinese laws mandating censorship are unjust. Any unjust law leaves people (and, by extension, businesses) with two choices--obey the law, or disobey it and risk the consequences. In this particular case, the Chinese government is violating its citizens' rights by demanding censorship--because governments have no right to censor information. (I don't want to digress into a long explanation of why that is here--if enough readers question this as a premise, I can discuss my basis for that belief elsewhere.) While governments have no right to censor (or to order others to do so), Google is not under an obligation to provide information--uncensored or otherwise. In that sense, Google is doing nothing immoral if they either break the Chinese law, or if they obey it.
While Google is not doing anything wrong in a moral sense when they censor their search results, I should point out that they are contradicting their own stated mission, "...to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." In complying with those laws, they are violating that mission; that mission, however, is not a moral mandate--it's simply their desired goal. Because they're going against that goal--a goal I consider to be desirable--I'd be inclined to say they should not comply with the law, even at the expense of not doing business in China.
That, however, is easy to say, since I don't have to pay that expense. Google, as a public company, also has a mandate to be profitable. The Chinese market is a large and fast growing market. If Google were to wait until China changed its laws, the delay in entering that market would harm their entry into that market, violate the mandate to make profits for their shareholders.
One might argue that Google, through their compliance, is helping the Chinese government commit the injustice. To an extent, that's true, and, ultimately--more than their violation of their mission statement--that's why I tend to think they're taking the wrong course with China. Their role in the injustice, however, is minor--the facts that they're not the ones who created the situation, and that there are other companies who would cooperate with the Chinese government both mean that if Google refused to cooperate, it would do little or nothing to end the injustice. If every other effective search engine were refusing to deal with China, and Google were the only company violating the boycott, then their action would be very potent aid to that regime and worthy of condemnation. However, the fact that other companies are assisting the Chinese government considerably mitigates their action. More to the point, while they may be collaborating with the unjust regime, Google is not directly harming anyone on their own--they are simply guilty of the inaction of not resisting the injustice through their self-censorship. Remember, while their stated intent is to provide information, but there is no moral mandate for them to do so.
It's undeniable that the real victims of the Chinese government's censorship demands are the people of China--who are denied legal access to information they have every right to, but it's also true that Google is another victim (as are the other search engines in China). After all--if they could provide uncensored access to information, they would be more useful, and therefore would be used more often, and therefore would be more profitable. Instead, the Chinese government forces them to choose between providing compromised information and therefore diminished profits or simply not participating in the Chinese market. Criticizing Google for choosing the former of those two poor choices is somewhat like criticizing a mugging victim for encouraging crime by not fighting off his armed assailant. That analogy isn't perfect: the hypothetical mugging victim does nothing wrong in handing over his wallet, while Google's compliance with its "mugger" is a little more active. (Hence my willingness to be somewhat critical of their actions.)
In the end, I tend to think Google made the incorrect decision in the case of choosing to censor Google.cn. However, I'm not convinced they acted immorally, and I'm not even certain their decision was incorrect all things considered.
Labels: NEWS
posted by John at 3/23/2006 11:50:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home