This is all a question of Morals, Comprimise, and Motivations.
Should ALL companys boycott China because of their differing standards? Tons of companys do business in China for the sole REASON that their different laws allow for things like cheap sweatshop labour (that are illegal in the USA). So we're obviously not talking about
illegality here, this is solely about MORALS (and maybe also Lothar's suggestion of Google being able to give congresses inside info on how China's policys work)
So USA's local censorship
laws are not part of the issue here. But those laws are based on liberalist ideals that made USA what it is today - a 1st world free (no jokes pls) nation. iirc it was America who historically was at the forefront of pushing the boundarys and furthering the goal of liberalism. Even if that isn't true (honestly, i don't know), Americans are culturally very proud of this \"FREEDOM! YAAAR!\" pioneering heritage, and good on em
.
I've always thought of Google as one such company who holds it's ideals close to it's heart. Many internet startup companys are run by idealistic Geeks who often have similar humanistic goals, so it's no surprise. One of these cultural american ideals - Freedom of Speech - seems to be one thing that Google has always stood for.
Google obviously desperately wanted access to the Chinese market. But as Lothar said:
what is their motivation?. I'd also like to add in another question which i think is important:
What does this action of theirs say about their true ideals?
Google's latest refusal to comply with the government anti-porn-thingy may actually be similar to this China issue. On many fronts Google has resisted bending to the government's demands for disclosure of information, on the grounds of
preserving the privacy of it's users. But this has obviously been at the expense of law enforcement - Google's actions to save the privacy of it's users actually make it easier for many people to DO HARM - child pornography for example - Google, in protecting ALL it's users, is also protecting child pornography.
So it seems that Google's policy of \"doing no harm\" does not extend out as far as taking an active effort to \"curb/combat\" harm within it's own Google borders. It seems to rather be liberally complacent to the harm that
other people can do using it's technology - it wants to keep it free for all even if that means being complacent to the harm which is indirectly done. It's freedom/liberalism at all costs, taking the good with the bad. That's what i think it reveals about the true nature of their ideals. The \"Do No Harm\" policy must not refer to indirect harm. Doctors still operate on convicted murders, even thought they are well aware that their actions may indirectly lead to more deaths - does the Doctor's compliance mean that he is indirectly guilty of the murderer's subsequent murders? What are the doctor's motivations for operating on the murderer?
The doctor operates on the murderer because he has taken a (hypocratic) oath to only see the smaller picture. His oath is to operate on everyone without judgement, and take comfort by telling themselves that if harm is done indirectly - that it still conforms to the \"do no harm\" portion of their hypocratic oath.
Perhaps Google's ideal is on similar grounds, that they are dedicated to providing their services no matter what. Perhaps as Lothar suggests: they are hopeful of better times in the future, and believe that this action of theirs will help to work towards that goal. And then excuse their actions by claiming that the harm done is indirect.
But the China thing, this is looking to be Google actually directly complying and ACTIVELY involving itself in China's censorship scheme - a scheme which undeniably DOES HARM by limiting information to people. Google's involvement in this seems to be at the level where they are themselves ACTIVELY DOING HARM by writing code which indeed \"does harm\" by censoring information.
The only way i can think of for them to morally defend themselves is for them to be able to prove that it was all China's doing - with China writing the code, offering it to Google who then integrated the code into Google.cn to comply with local law. Google's choice being to either comply or face explusion from China - they chose to comply. A form of \"entrapment\".
But i don't really think that's what happened. If you ask me, what really happened is that Google was sick of the threats to ban them from China, so Google themselves wrote the code and OFFERED it to China. I think Google is an ACTIVE participant in this \"harm doing\". Therefore they can't get outof it by crying that China engaged in \"entrapment\".
This could perhaps be similar to IBM and the Holocaust.
As Lothar said: What is their motivation?
- If they are in it for the money, then they suck.
- If they are in it for the power - saying that \"by having our foot in the door like this, we will be in a better position to change things for the better\". It's comprimising your goals NOW so that you have a better position of power and influence in the FUTURE. It's morally dubious to comprimise your ideals like that for a future goal - most of us know that comprimise after comprimise is what eventaully turns good idealistic politicians BAD.
Also, the fact remains that a lot of people see Google's actions as not only immoral, but inherently UNAMERICAN, they see them as aiding the enemy. To those people i say this: the very concept of \"nations\" is slowly becomming an archaic concept. We are moving towards a single global village. International corporations may grow until they replace nations in the power they weild. And the internet looks to be the emerging socialism to counteract their power.
. "And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews" eh