Google Admits China Censorship Was Damaging

pilsner.urquell writes to let us know about a wide-ranging interview with Google's founders from Davos, Switzerland. Larry Page and Sergey Brin admitted that allowing China to censor its search engine did harm to the company in its Western markets. Quoting the Guardian article: "Asked whether he regretted the decision, Mr. Brin admitted yesterday: 'On a business level, that decision to censor... was a net negative.'" The reporter concludes that Google is unlikely to revise its Chinese censorship policy any time soon.

Agreed.. but why?

Google have made it easier for Chinese users to find uncensored content and clearly labels pages where results have been censored. Since they would not be allowed to conduct business if they didn't allow this, I can't really see how what they did can be considered morally wrong.

They had a third path.

Here's my reasoning: for an action to be "morrally wrong", you must first have a choice in whether or not to do the action, and Google obviously had a choice. Furthermore, for an action to be morally wrong, there must be a choice which is more morally right than the the alternative/s. One of the Exorcist remakes had a scene where a priest was forced by Nazis to choose a few people out of large group to die, and if he did not choose, then they would all die. I would argue that by choosing people to die, the priest did not do anything morally wrong because the alternative was worse (not to mention selfish because he is avoiding the pain of knowing that he killed the people he picked). IMO, this was analogous to the situation Google was in. Google could either choose to give some information to the Chinese people or none. By not providing the service, the Chinese people would could not get around the great firewall would be worse off, so Google's choice was the morally right decision.

I think the points you make are quite right, but they ignore one key fact: uncensored, U.S.-based google.com was available in mainland China prior to Google's introduction of the censored version, around 90% of the time. What they gained, by adding a censored Chinese version, was the ability to do business in China, and therefore sell ads and draw revenue from their Chinese users.

Google admitted as much in their blog at a time, when they admitted that the U.S. page was still accessible to Chinese users most of the time. The decision wasn't "censored or nothing," it was "revenue or less revenue?" Google didn't compromise for the good of the Chinese people, they compromised in order to tap into the fat revenue stream that they would have otherwise missed.

With Google's technical skills, they almost certainly could have kept their page accessible to Chinese users most of the time, had they really wanted to. But doing so would have meant missing out on much of the revenue from that market, since money is a lot easier to restrict than Internet traffic. They made a straightforward choice: money, or ideals? They chose money.

I, personally, do not fault them for this; I think most people, given a choice between their "ideals" and money, would do the same thing. The only thing I think they're guilty of is hypocrisy. Had any other company done the same thing, I wouldn't have blinked an eye: most companies seek nothing but profit at any cost, and don't act any better than you would expect from such goals. (And many have done well by such dealings; the public has a short memory -- you can use a man for slave labor, then later sell cars to his grandchildren, and nobody will think less of you. Such is the world we live in.) However, Google billed itself, both to investors and the public, as having higher motives, and when they were put to the test they failed dismally.

There is no comparison between Google, and your hypothetical priest, because Google had a third option: they could have walked away from the dilemma, and simply refused to offer a censored version of their service, told their investors that they could not accept advertising revenue from China in clear conscience while maintaining their principles, and attempted to give Chinese users the best uncensored service that they could provide.

They didn't.

When it came time to choose between money and idealism, money won. For what it's worth, I'm fine with it, I just wish they would be more direct about their decisions and state their motivations more directly. It's only mildly irritating to see evil done these days, but it's substantially worse to see evil done while under the banner of good.

If your motive is profit, seek profit, and don't clothe your amorality behind a facade of good intentions. You can only have one primary goal. If you want profit, and profit leads you to deal with the Nazis, the Chinese, or the Devil himself, be proud; at the end of the day, at least you can say y

It was a nobel ideal.

I would consider being evil a matter of perception?

Smells like...

If they really consider the policy to be a net negative, they'd reverse the policy. You figure out what they really think about the policy and you come to the conclusion that this is just a PR move.

Re:Smells like...

Not the policy, the decision. They've already gotten the bad press, and the amount of good press they receive from reversing course will not make up for it.

Say you pick between two lines at the grocery store. By the time you're two-thirds of the way through the line, you realize it's moving more slowly than the other. Your decision was a net negative, but that doesn't mean you leave your line and join the other. Sometimes we make mistakes but have to stick with them.

Re:Smells like...

Picture three supermarkets: One shoots its customers at random, at the drop of a hat. No signs, no notice; *BANG* THUD.
The second supermarket has clearly marked signs at the entrances: "Customers will be shot at random whilst shopping." You've given the customers notice of this, so all is well. Once again, every so often we'll hear *BANG* THUD.
The third supermarket doesn't shoot its customers.

Okay, how about an analogy that's slightly less flawed.

Picture three supermarkets. One claims to offer all of the products you would ever want, but in reality they don't carry anything organic, free from pesticides. If you ask, they assure you that such products do not exist. The second supermarket makes extra space on its shelves for the products it is not allowed to carry, giving you information about those products and the specific government regulations that forbade them from selling them to you. You are welcome to order the same foods from their identical stores in other countries if you're willing to wait a while longer for delivery.

The third supermarket offers every product you would ever want, but it is not allowed to exist in China.

Until Google came along, all of the supermarkets were of the first type. Google is the only company offering the second type in China. They decided this was better than the alternative, which was that the Chinese people wouldn't even know what they were missing. Thanks to Google, now they do.

Re:Smells like...

Not the policy, the decision. They've already gotten the bad press, and the amount of good press they receive from reversing course will not make up for it.

Say you pick between two lines at the grocery store. By the time you're two-thirds of the way through the line, you realize it's moving more slowly than the other. Your decision was a net negative, but that doesn't mean you leave your line and join the other. Sometimes we make mistakes but have to stick with them.

You're right. Say I pick a fight with some poor kid. I'm beating the crap out of him, and he doesn't stand a chance. I've already made my evil decision, and the amount of good that I will do by stopping won't make up for it, so I keep beating the poor kid. Sometimes we make mistakes but have to stick with them, but when you are actively doing something wrong, you can stop at any time.

They can stop censoring at any time. They can refuse to do it. They can't undo the damage that has been done, but they can stop doing more.

The amount of credibility that they have lost so far is a sunk cost, but by continuing to do it, they are loosing more. Their argument is "we did something wrong, and we are still doing it because the amount of credit we will get for stopping isn't enough." That isn't an argument from principle. It's saying that they won't do the right thing because it doesn't gain them enough. They will gain more by staying evil than by being good, so that's what they choose to do.

Good to hear

Maybe they'll consider the consequences of their actions the next time they have to make a similar choice...

The Censorship Was Damaging ...

... but the dumplings were delicious.

Damn!

We cant continue business unless we use slave labour....guess we'll have to use slave labour.

They have nothing to admit or apologize for

and I think, by virtue of the fact that they haven't actually changed what they're doing, that they agree.

Millions of Chinese Internet users have better access to information now than they would have if Google had decided to take "the principled position" and refuse to play ball. What seems to fly over the heads of people who advocate that position is that the result would not have been the Chinese government caving in and saying, "Okay, you're right, we shouldn't force you to censor." The result would have been "Okay, then you don't get to do business in our country," and, as much as that might make Westerners feel all warm and fuzzy inside (Hooray! We have held fast in the face of evil!) it would not be a good thing for the millions of people in China who are now able to use Google every day.

Further, not only would Google have been shut out of China, but a homegrown alternative would undoubtedly have taken its place -- and you can bet that the alternative would not have taken the pains Google has to point out to its Chinese users that their search results are in fact censored. That fact is spelled out in no uncertain terms on google.cn's search results pages: they say "" which means more or less "In order to comply with local regulations, some search results have been removed."

Google is helping millions of people more efficiently access information, and it is pointing out the existence of government interference with said information to people who might otherwise be unaware of it.

Taking their ball and going home would improve on that situation how, exactly?

This is a positive for Google

How many other CEOs a) admit mistakes or b) state that dealing with the dictatorial regime in China is not in their best interest.

But it was amusing to see the rationalizations from the Google employees and apologists for effectively collaborating with the Chinese government. Justify it as you will, Google was collaborating with the Chinese government, working hand in hand, to censor information.

For a look at the absurdity, see:

http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananmen+s quare [google.cn]

Sunrise Over Tiananmen Square

Tiananmen Square is one of the largest city squares in the world. It is located on the central axis of old ... The Museum of Chinese History and the Museum of the Chinese Revolution are located on the eastern side of Tiananmen Square. ...

When they take google.cn down then this will mean something more - right now we just have words, actions don't reflect what Brin is saying.

Re:This is a positive for Google

It's still there. Just not in the obvious places. Try "tiananmen square student tanks" [google.cn].

The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, also known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, June 4th Incident, or the Political Turmoil between Spring and Summer of 1989 by the government of the People's Republic of China, were a series of demonstrations led by students, intellectuals and labour activists in the People's Republic of China between April 15, 1989 and June 4, 1989. The demonstrations centred on Tiananmen Square in Beijing, but large scale protests also occured in cities throughout China, such as in Shanghai.

It's not Googles fault

Censorship is the fault of the Chinese government, All Google ever did was respect and abide by the laws of the country they're trying to do business in. If you don't like then the censorship then you should chase after the government not the business. In fact it would have been a very bad decision for Google NOT to do business in China because it is a HUGE market.

China is not unique

Google censors results from Americans at the request of the American government. We don't talk about it because the vast majority of people in the country despise the distasteful type of search results they filter. But nevertheless, if you truly believe in free speech, it is hypocritical to suggest that limiting one type of speech is ok while limiting another is not.

See this [chillingeffects.org], this [chillingeffects.org], or for more general information, chillingeffects.org [chillingeffects.org].

Yes, there are terms you can use on google that will produce an error message ("some results have been censored due to legal request; for more information see chillingeffects.org.") Get creative, and you'll see it.

I'm not blaming google; they must follow the law of the land. Nevertheless, there you have it.

Dupe...Read this today taking a Dump at Google

:p It was on the Google Toilet Stalls [slashdot.org]

I submitted this article

But I titled it "Sergey Brin turns into a corporate douchebag." "On a business level, that decision to censor... was a net negative." I think I speak for a lot of people here when I say, wtf is that shit? I can think of a few more, say, pressing reasons [clearharmony.net] why abetting the oppressive regime in China is fucked than the good ol' bottom line. Don't be evil my ass.

Sigh. Sergey, we barely knew ye.

Easy "Cyberspace Bypass".....

All you need to do is find an offshore shell portal and submit your Google searches throuh them.

ProxyBox is used by some Chinese searchers and is an easy way to get around the blocks tht schoold put on MySpace.

It's never too late to do the right thing.

The reporter concludes that Google is unlikely to revise its Chinese censorship policy any time soon.

An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." --Orlando A. Battista

Typo

"Google Admits China Censorship Was Damaging"
Google Admits China Censorship Publicity Was Damaging

All fixed.

The censorshop is working!

I'm going to steal this from Jimmy Wales. It's significant for two reasons.

Paragraph 1. It's not just Tiananmen, but every other dirty thing the Chinese Government is doing they've helped suppress. Who are they holding this information from? Not you or I, but from the Chinese Public. They're helping the Chinese Government spread lies.

Paragraph 2. It's worked! Today Young Chinese don't believe Tiananmen ever happened. Mission Accomplished, Google! They are having a related problem in Cambodia where young people don't believe the Killings Fields ever happened.

"In January 2006, Google agreed to censor their mainland China site, Google.cn, to remove information about the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre [3], as well as other topics such as Tibetan independence, the banned spiritual movement Falun Gong and the political status of Taiwan. When people search for those censored topics, it will list the following at the bottom of the page in Chinese, "According to the local laws, regulations and policies, part of the searching result is not shown." The uncensored Wikipedia articles on the 1989 protests, both in English and Chinese Wikipedia, have been attributed as a cause of the blocking of Wikipedia by the government in mainland China.

In 2006, the American PBS program "Frontline" broadcast a segment filmed at Peking University, many of whose students participated in the 1989 protests. Four students were shown a picture of the Tank man, but none of them correctly identified the person or the event depicted. Some responded that it was a military parade, or an artwork. This is reflective of either strong censorship of the event in mainland China, or the effectiveness of political indoctrination such that students feigned ignorance to an American journalist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ests_of_1989 [wikipedia.org]

I disagree

I do not believe the move to censor was bad overall for Google. It's not like they were faced with the choice of (a) censor or (b) not censor. The choice was (1) present censored material, or (2) abandon ship. No heads are rolling on account of Google, which is more than can be said for their competitors [bbc.co.uk]. And it's not like they're selling them Nukes [slashdot.org] or anything I very strongly disagree with the statement that they abandoned their 'policy of "Don't Be Evil". They're not. Bull shit. China's demands of a censored search engine are evil. Google is not being evil. China is evil. I think you would have to be really shortsighted to actually blame Google for this [1]. I do not think any less of Google. I think less of china. And I applaud Google for making at least something available there.

That aside, I think their decision to go into China was definitely good for society/the world as a whole. Besides the obvious benefits of Chinese people having more information (albeit biased) available, I think it was good to draw more attention to (a) their censorship program, (b) the censored material, and (c) the evilness of the Chinese government.

(a) The rest of the world can see that it exists, and to what extent. It's easier to find out what material is being censored.
(b) There are obviously loopholes. I don't know of any in particular, but I'm sure a large amount of information slips through. There's no way you can get a bullet-proof censor of the whole internet. Also, the rest of the world can see actual content that was censored (what really happened/why was it censored anyway?)
(c) This should be self-explanatory. At least it increases awareness of what they're doing. I had a friend that did a semester abroad in China (Univ of Beijing). He said it was bad there. Really bad. Apparently "George Washington" is an unacceptable name there. The problem was, he wanted to go to (God forbid) George Washington University for grad school. The problem was, he couldn't access anything from there online, he said his mail was checked. It was such a pain that he ended up giving up applying there because the name of the university was so hard to get through their shit political system. I think the censorship program just makes situations like this come under more fire. And rightfully so. Go Google!

[1] Maybe that's the problem. People will believe any mumbo jumbo [youtube.com] you throw at them. My parents are no exception. "Oh Google is censoring/ They shouldn't do that". That's not even half of the story. People are idiots. If this actually did/will hurt Google, that will be the only reason.

Sounds familiar

So, we made a decision, and it was wrong. It was a bad call. And now that we're going to keep doing the exact same thing wrong thing, you're mad at us? We expected more from you. We thought you were smarter than this.

Squashing mod points...

... but google seems a little bit "evil" here, and they seem to admit it.
Now mod me down and be off with it - don't forget to put on that blinker.

What they say and what they do

I can connect to Google France [google.fr], Google Japan [google.co.jp], Google Germany [google.de] and so forth. I used to be able to connect to Google China [google.cn] - you can even see it in google.com's search for Google China and the cache for it. But nowadays, it just redirects to Google.com. They don't want Westerners able to see what people can and can't search for in China. So what else is new, the corporate stooges are saying BS to the press, while in the back they are continuing to do what they do and are attempting to hide what they are doing.

Lying assholes...

'On a business level, that decision to censor... was a net negative.'"

Were that true then this could *not possibly happen*: The reporter concludes that Google is unlikely to revise its Chinese censorship policy any time soon.

Why? Because Google is publically traded. The shareholders could sue the pants off him and the the Google executive team. "Net Negative" meant *losing* money, which means something that, as a business, they would want to fix ASAP.

So, what did they guy REALLY mean when he says that? Here is the quote from Mr. Brin as heard from inside his own head:

"We are making butt-loads of money, but we'd rather not look like the assholes that we are, so I am going to 'fake apologize', make sure that NOTHING changes in terms of censorship policies in China that bring in the cash... The great part about it is, in the future, should someone ever complain about what fuckheads we are, I can point them to the direct quote that shows we've 'seen the error of our ways', and thus be able to make sure that little ray of truth doesn't spoil the meeting until after I've already got the deal signed... score! Oh, and yes, yes I do like to fuck children, thanks for asking."

Economically speaking

Google admitted that they have net loss now (minus in West due to political backlash ourweighs pluses in China market), but they see the growth of Chinese market outweighing the growth in West, so they foresee how this minus is turning to plus in the future.

So, economically, yes, it is a smart move.

Disappointed in Google

After weighing up my feelings on the issue, I'm very disappointed in Google. For a search engine company, whose mission is to organise and disseminate information that's on the internet, deliberately distorting search results to better serve an oppresive communist regime is a major ethical failure. When faced with a choice between providing good search results and getting more money, Google chose the money.

Re:Now we know we can trust Google

I believe we have...but nothing compare to the one in China ;-) http://www.google-stories.com/rubrique.php3?id_rub rique=22 [google-stories.com]

Re:insight

No. No it does not.