From Vodkapundit:
Google won’t stand up to Beijing. But they’re fearless when it comes to putting Brussels in its place:
Google, the giant internet search company, is to lead industry opposition to new proposals from the European Commission to regulate online content.
I support Google in its efforts to fight the EU. The Union is determined to enforce all kinds of nasty regulations on the internet, and supports turning internet governance over to the UN. The problem is, by cutting deals with China, Google lost whatever moral authority it once had.
I used to laugh at Europe’s attempts at wresting the internet away from freedom-loving people. Now it’s not so funny.
I touched on this earlier, but part of the market dynamic of promoting yourself as a defender of freedom of speech and information is to eschew pragmatic business concerns (and profit) in order to—ironically and pragmatically—maintain the public image and branding that makes you successful in the long run.
Idealism as a pragmatic market force.
Hypocrisy, I noted the other day, is often times a disingenuous charge—a way of moralizing perfectly reasonable pragmatic inconsistencies. The trouble arises when you build your reputation on the will emotional appeal that goes along with moralizing hypocrisy.
And Google has lost its high ground because it traded in its idealism for business realism.
It’s a beautiful world. For you. For you.
http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen
I’m having trouble understanding what the big deal is. My objections to Google’s critics come in two flavors:
1. Google is NOT representing that its China-search engine is a comprehensive, unfiltered service. In fact, every google.cn search carries a disclaimer that the results have been filterd. If Google created a new search engine “happysearches.com” that only returned results with happy, warm-fuzzy content would there be an outcry that the company had sold out it’s freedom of information bonefides—especially, if the site explicitly stated that all results were filtered for happiness?
2. What is the alternative? Are all these critics really suggesting that in order to protect their freedom of speech/freedom of information reputation Google should allow their service in China to be handicapped by government-filters that slow service or block it altogether? Isn’t Google’s desire to provide good service corollary to their fiduciary duty to shareholders?
3. Are you saying that because Google wouldn’t “stand up to” China it is forever precluded from standing up to any other governments? Isn’t it possible (note: I have no idea if this is the case) that Google can regret the Chinese situation at the same time that they accept it?
I think the ultimatum is “Either forego succumbing to the Chinese censorship laws or forego the positive public image.” The positive public image in this case is something THEY BANK ON and USE to generate business. That’s where this really hits the fan.
Furthermore, claiming that Google can regret the situation while accepting it and 50 cents will buy you a play at the Mrs. Pac Man/Galaga machine (And a good time no matter which classic you choose), but, really, doesn’t matter that much.
See, the issue here is that Google’s grandstanding on behalf of freedom of speech is, in reality, a clever marketing ploy in this age of internet businesses. Providing us with Gmail, Google Earth, and all relevant freebies, standing up to those big bad nazis, it SELLS Google as a friend to the people, a watchdog, someone to trust, and THAT is one major reason why they do so well. Because they engender so much trust.
To insinuate that this image should stand up in the face of the Chinese affair is fairly ridiculous. When the image of idealism drives so much of the company’s success, compromising it carries a significant price.
In theory, at least.
Hmmm.
“Do no evil”
“Especially in America where we own you bitches!”
“Unless it’s in China”
“Cause ethics is some val-u-a-ble shit, unless it ain’t”
I’m really not trying to be stubborn about this, but I fail to see the ethical lapse. The options for a search engine in China are:
1. No search engines;
2. Government run search engines;
3. Government filtering/blocking of commercial search engines; and
4. This admittedly and explicitly disclosed search engine which changes the results of searches specifically requested by the government.
I just don’t see that 1-3 are better than 4.
And it isn’t like Google has gone out of its way to facilitate the government. For example, Google is only providing alternative “pro-China” pages on the exact spellings of searches like Tiananmen. Now, certainly the government will wise up eventually and cover alternative and misspellings, but Google doesn’t appear to be jumping up and down to do it for them.
I agree that a company with the motto “Do No Evil” should attempt to minimize its evil-ness (since I doubt very much that Google before google.cn was doing absolutely NO evil at all).
That Google has benefitted from its motto and reputation suggests to me that it’s act of creating Google.cn should be examined as to just how evil Google.cn is. Obviously, I don’t think it’s all that evil in light of the alternatives. Some disagree. I’d be interested in what they say Google should have done.
With the exception of Google’sâ€â€whose image-failure can be taken as cautionary nowâ€â€left-tinged social-responsibility marketing has always been coded classism and racism. European and American leftists have a deep, deep, deep need to shopâ€â€and to advertise their shoppingâ€â€where there’s no chance they’ll run up on any broke-ass niggers or Eminem-and-Kim couples who aren’t Eminem and Kim.
You doubt this? Read a Kos thread about Costco. It’s a Marie Antoinette soundalike contest. There are fewer uses of “white trash”â€â€a negro-inclusive metonymy in its lefty usageâ€â€in Jim Goad’s whole ouevre than in any single DU anti-WalMart thread. I’m a rich right-wing asshole, and even I find it sickening.
So The only way Google can save their image-investment is by raising price barriers to match their rhetoric. No more free junk. The undiscriminated clientele it attracts takes the progressive bullshit seriously, and reacts badly when it’s proven hollow. Price ‘em out and get the Whole Foods crowd. No amount of showy union-busting, eminent domain thefts of minority and elderly housing, or transparently resource-wasteful “eco-friendly” window dressing can dissuade their target market from shopping where price prohibits the presence of the underclass (except as servants).
Know your demographics, Google. Know yourselves.