Google betrays own philosophy

helps China to "do evil"

Published on January 25, 2006 By PJ_ In Google

"In order to operate from China, we have removed some content from the search results available on google.cn, in response to local law, regulation or policy. While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission."

What happened to "do no evil"? I'm very dissapointed in Google over this.

Comments (Page 1)

Cordelia

on Jan 25, 2006

That is dissapointing, I agree, but what can they do? I don't think they could operate in China otherwise.

Cordelia

on Jan 25, 2006

Although they did take a stand here in the States on not handing over information the government has asked for. http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,70055-0.html?tw=wn_tophead_11

I guess they know their audience.

Voyager9

on Jan 25, 2006

There is a difference between "do no evil" and "obey the laws of the country your operating in".
I agree that the outcome is disappointing, but it is hardly surprising. Google didn't really have a leg to stand on here, if they want to do buisiness in China, they have to obey China's laws. If they take a stand, China tells 'em to F' off.

PJ_

on Jan 25, 2006

It certainly would be nice if one of the big boys had the cojones to tell Chine to F' off.

No ethical company can help China enforce its censorship
No company that does not help China enforce its censorship can do business in China
THEREFORE
No ethical company can do business in China

If enough so-called 'ethical' companies followed this logic it might give China some incentive to come out of the dark ages.

PJ_

on Jan 25, 2006

There is a difference between "do no evil" and "obey the laws of the country your operating in".

In China, it's not possible for Google to do both of those things. To obey Chinese law is evil.

Dr Guy

on Jan 25, 2006

Unfortunately, it is as Voyager says. I doubt Google likes it, but like Microsoft, they see big dollar signs in China and so do not want to piss off the government.

CaptainWin

on Jan 25, 2006

A bigger concern should be why does Google record and store permanently all of your searches and movements you do on the site.

Posted via WinCustomize Browser/Stardock Central

kona0197

on Jan 25, 2006

Although they did take a stand here in the States on not handing over information the government has asked for.

Every search engine should have done the same.

ParaTed2k

on Jan 25, 2006

How dare the government of China insist companies follow their laws when doing business in their country, don't they know anything?

What next, are they going to insist that cars made for import to China be made to Chinese specifications? Wouldn't it be just terrible if Google gave in to China's demands and actually published the search engine and search results in the languages and dialects of China!!!

What else are they going to do, just close up shop in any country that has laws contrary to their "philosophy"?

PJ_

on Jan 25, 2006

If the penalty for doing what's right is being required to close up shop, then a moral person has to close up shop. If there was something morally wrong about Chinese car specifications (I don't know, maybe the shock absorbers have to be made out of dead kittens), then I would expect companies to simply refuse to make cars for the Chinese market.

Dr Guy

on Jan 25, 2006

If the penalty for doing what's right is being required to close up shop, then a moral person has to close up shop.

The critical part here is "a moral person". Companies are amoral entities, and not persons.

Jafo

on Jan 25, 2006

Google doesn't care about truth/accuracy in search results....just so long as their 'system' is all-pervasive.

If that means being less 'accurate' in China to keep the locals happy....well....the billions of potential mind-slaves to their philosophy/ethos is worth more than the minor blip on their radar of being outed for modding results...for whatever reason, governmental or insidious.

First rule....saturate...

Second rule....dominate...

Third rule....insinuate.

If you think MS is an autonomous monopoly....wait till you see what happens when one entity controls information dissemination....

Jafo

on Jan 25, 2006

Think selective filtering......you search for 'cars' but strangely only 'Fords' show up.....

Of course it will be way more subtle than that....

Though it all depends on how much moolah is being paid ...for this 'selectivity'....

And people think the sun shines out of Google's arse.....

Kevin_C

on Jan 25, 2006

Although they did take a stand here in the States on not handing over information the government has asked for

The only thing Google is protecting in this is themselves. They are concerned that if they turn over the results being asked for that their competitors would somehow glean a glimpse of how their search algorithms rate pages. This is afterall the *only* way google makes money, so for them turning this over could potentially have a much greater effect than the other companies who have other means of making income. Don't think for one minute that google gives a plugged nickel about you or I. All they care about is the almighty dollar and their stock holders profit margins. Besides, the data being gathered it completely anonymous, it is nothing more than a list of results that were returned based on certain search criteria. Nothing about the person or computer who made the search. The government could care less about those details, they just want to try and prove that (surprise, surprise) there's porn on the net and sometimes it comes up when you search for innocuous terms.

PJ_

on Jan 25, 2006

The critical part here is "a moral person". Companies are amoral entities, and not persons.

True enough. And I know that, of course. I was thinking of this article even as I wrote the post. I think this quote from the article is relevant here:

(By the way, I suspect that the increasing personification of corporations might turn out to be their Achilles’ heel. The more society buys into the myth that companies are real people, the more we expect them to adhere to human-like standards of ethical behavior. People like me would allow corporations to get away with murder, because we expect nothing better. It’s the people who get shocked when they discover that designer-label clothing is manufactured for ten cents an hour by children in China who cause trouble for a brand’s image and force companies to improve their behavior.)

I guess I can't help but be a bit disappointed when an entity that purports to be moral ("do no evil") turns out to be otherwise. Oh well.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!