"Google executives have privately fretted for years that the company’s decision to censor the search results on google.cn, to filter out topics banned by Chinese censors, was out of sync with the company’s official motto, “Don’t be evil.”"
"While Google’s business in China is now small, analysts say that the country could soon become one of the most lucrative Internet and mobile markets, and a withdrawal would significantly reduce Google’s long-term growth."
-http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/world/asia/13beijing.html
"Google cofounder hopeful about uncensored search in China."
-http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/google-co-founder-hopeful-about-uncensored-search-in-china/?ref=technology
(note: here Google has changed its position from withdrawal from China to pressuring the Chinese government to remove restrictions.)
Letter to the Editor:
There has been some controversy over Google recanting its decision to withdraw from China. The particular criticism that ethically, it seems unlikely to most that Google has an altruistic aim in pursuing the Chinese market, is of interest to me. It seems peculiar that people would support the resultant increased freedom of the Chinese people but still oppose Google's actions merely because Google will turn a profit. If Google, or any other multinational corporation, could be successful in enacting social reforms that would increase access to information and the capacity of individuals to more successfully oppose dubious government policy - how can we, as representatives of freedom and humanitarian aims, choose our hatred of corporations over the prospect of a more liberated people?
It seems worthwhile to note that Google’s motto “Do No Evil” is inherently wrought with ambiguity and the word “Evil” is an ideological nightmare; but assuming we have the same political aims as the corporation in question, why aren’t we unequivocally on their side? Google could be part of enacting one of the greatest humanitarian successes of the century.
I appreciate any advice on how to improve this that you may have to offer :) In 200 words, I can't really fully explore all of my thoughts about corporations who directly or indirectly push political agendas, I think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think its great. but just for clearification you are not supporting google seperating itself from china. If so I think your right. I think some of the language for me was hard to grasp but my vocabulary is not as wide as those at google so I think you would be good.
ReplyDeleteI think the thoughts you explore are right on. I find it odd that anyone would take a silly slogan like "Do No Evil" so seriously. (or maybe google does?)
ReplyDeleteSince when does a company have to operate out of altruistic motives? And given that they really don't, hasn't google given us plenty of super-helpful free stuff already??
I know Google is huge, but I am curious that they should be expected to reform the Chinese government. In that respect, information among the people MAY be likely to create change (at least that's what all the bumper stickers say) so tying that point in with the good vs. evil idea works so well.
But my question to you goes back to this paragraph:
"The particular criticism that ethically, it seems unlikely to most that Google has an altruistic aim in pursuing the Chinese market, is of interest to me."
and
"choose our hatred of corporations over the prospect of a more liberated people?"
because in the earlier part, I felt like you were defending google's precarious position, combined with an already limited information data-base for the average Chinese person, more so than expressing a hatred of corporations, so that was unclear to me at the end.
Hope this helps!
Thanks guys!
ReplyDelete