Google Committed to Chinese Business

Snowgen writes "Despite this week's earlier story that hinted Google may consider pulling out of China over the topic of censorship, Reuters is now quoting Sergey Brin as saying that 'Google Inc. is committed to doing business in China despite criticism the company has faced for abiding by Chinese government censorship restrictions.'" More from the article: "Brin told a small group of invited journalists: 'I think it's perfectly reasonable to do something different. Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there ... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now'."

Typo in headline

[winkydink]

It should read "Google committed to Chinese Revenue"

Principles? What're those?

[drinkypoo]

Say, OK, let's stand by the principle against censorship and we won't actually operate there ... That's an alternative path. It's not the one we've chosen to take right now'.

He then added "I mean, what good are principles anyway? They don't make you any money. Keeping your word and following your beliefs, well, it's highly overrated.

Yea sure

[bwd]

They are making it sound like they are taking some kind of stand in China. That is the impression I'm getting out of their comments. That is all BS. They're making the decision to not get left out of the China market even if that means compromising every principle they have. They are commited to making money in China, not free speech.

Question for Brin

[Anonymous Coward]

I have just one question for Brin: If censoring words like "democracy" to the people of the world's largest country, because you were asked to by its authoritarian government, isn't an "evil" thing for a company in the information-distribution business to do, then what exactly would qualify as "evil", if anything?

Why is everyone amazed?

[mikesd81]

Google is above all a business. A business is to make money. They stood for American rights when the gov't wanted documents. It seems everyone is forgetting this when the Google China stories creep up. Consider: If you own a business and you open an office in China and you want to make money....will you defy the Chinese gov't? Or will you conform to their laws and policies?

Don't hate

[inexia]

The first rule of Google - China is that you do not talk about Google - China

Plain and Simple

[WED Fan]

Google is now evil. Censorship, providing access to the secret police so they can find the dissidents, and etc. is as much as breaking their vow of "Don't be evil" as a doctor taking the vow, "First, do no harm," and then providing genocidal services. It is as bad as Dow Chemical providing the means of extermination. But, Google goes in with eyes WIDE OPEN and experience knowing this is what they are doing.

Re:Principles? What're those?

[Ksevio]

If you were in China would you rather have a censored google or no google at all? Not living in China you could probably say no google, but I'm sure if you didn't have it, you would take the opposite opinion. You'd also probably thing it was evil of google to abandon your country. As a search company, their job is to make as much content accessibly to as many people as possible. Removing a major part of the population would be much worse than just removing some of the content.

Everyone Shames Google...

[ZSpade]

But they forget who the real scourge is here. Google is no influence over policy in China, nor could it provide any uncensored searches without risking the lives of those who live there. The Chinese government is to blame here, and no matter how much we badmouth google for abiding by that countries LAWS, it will not change things. Today the people of China are opressed, Tomorrow they will be opressed, and nothing is going to change that. Google would only be depriving the Chinese of a tool by pulling out, not their rights to an uncensored world... no you can thank China for that.

It is not Googles responsibility to change China

[bunions]

And I think it's preposterous to ask them to hew to some sort of Holier-Than-Thou philosophy while the rest of the world rushes to do business with China.

Re:Question for Brin

[kfg]

. . .what exactly would qualify as "evil", if anything?

Falling stock prices.

KFG

Re:Everyone Shames Google...

[GotenXiao]

What absolutely amazes me is that in EVERY SINGLE Google China discussion, no one says a dicky bird about MSN China, or Yahoo China, or all these other fucking search engines that have Chinese sites. Why is Google being singled out? because of their "do no evil" policy? Sorry, but I'd consider it more evil to deprive China of Google, even if it is censored.

Which would you prefer, a censored Wikipedia or no Wikipedia? I'd take censored. Something is better than nothing.

Re:Typo in headline

[Irish_Samurai]

No. Google does not have a legal obligation to make money for it's shareholders.

Google has a legal obligation to behave in a manner dictated to it by the voting shareholders. While this is usually a directive to make money, it could be other things. It just so happens that Page and Brin have 66.2 percent of the voting power. [eweek.com] So they can actually do whatever they want to do. THEY are the final word on China or not, so you can point the finger directly at them.

Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too.

[BaronHethorSamedi]

A few points.

First, as has been rightly pointed out in previous debates on this subject, Google is a publicly-traded American corporation. This means it is under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders. Pulling out of the world's largest market, even on a matter of principle, is a poor business judgment decision that would likely result in Google getting sued by the stockholders down the line. If there is "evil" here, U.S. corporate law is as much to blame as anyone.

Second, the Chinese government does not care about the First Amendment. Laudable though it might seem to take a stand and protest Chinese censorship by refusing their business, the Chinese brass would likely respond with the Mandarin equivalent of "Don't let the door hit you on the way out!" The censorship would continue as before, with only Yahoo and MS raking in huge profits for Chinese search traffic (Yahoo having been notably more cooperative with the People's Republic in quashing dissenting voices than Google ever was).

If Google is really concerned about the democratic privileges of the Chinese people (which incidentally, they don't enjoy--however much Americans may find censorship to be reprehensible, China is a different country, and free speech hasn't been established there), sticking around is one of the best things they could do. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Google has always been available in China--as Google.com. Google.cn just makes it more language- and user-friendly for the Chinese consumer. Additionally, every time the Chinese engine returns censored results, isn't there a note to the effect that the document has been redacted? This would seem, in my mind, to contribute to a heightened public awareness in China as to just how pervasive the censorship regime is. This will in turn spawn more, not less, dissent, tending more towards democratic reform in the long term.

What do the people of China really gain if Google shuts down? Even redacted information, if freely available, is far better than none if we want to motivate reform. If Google pulled out, it would lose business, subject itself to legal liability, and change nothing in China in the long term. By staying, it allows the Chinese one more tool (however controlled) for obtaining and disseminating information. No barrier is as porous as one that tries to limit the flow of information; the Great Firewall can't last forever. Maybe Google can help pull it down--but not if they leave.

Odds are You are worse then google.

[Anonymous Coward]

so many god damn hypocrites here. ohh google is making money in china! burn them! while i type this out on my made in china keyboard, attached to my made in china computer, wearing my made in china whatever the hell while listening to shit spewing from my made in china stero, paid for by supporting made in china equipment.

You think you're so noble trying to flame google over this. while you whisle dixie chicks songs and shop in wallmart.

"I really hoped they would be a good company"... so that somehow I could justify my missdeeds by saying hey I bought stock in google.

Just what the hell have you done to help the general populance of china today?

Anything? Ever? no? then shut the hell up.

Re:Bad dog

[Buran]

You missed the point.

Google's motto is "Do no evil".

Corporations do evil things.

Hence, Google becoming a RAC (tm) means that Google is being evil.

Which means Google is lying in its very motto.

Re:Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too.

[ericspinder]

First, as has been rightly pointed out in previous debates on this subject[Google is]...under a legal obligation to make business decisions that maximize the value of the stock to its shareholders.

As others have pointed out, they are under the stockholder wishes. Few public companies have a block which controls more than %50 of the votes, but the Google founders still do.

I believe that they are right to deal with China. However, I am also happy that they are getting some hell for it, as the debate is valuable.

The "Do No Evil" theme is too susceptible to...

[GoldTeamRules]

...people passing judgement about every action Google makes. Obeying laws of the countries you are doing business in can certainly be defended as an honorable way to live the mantra "Do No Evil".

It is not the responsibility of Google to be a vehicle for political influence.

I think what Google is trying to accomplish with this theme is to state that they want to compete fairly (albeit, agressively and relentlessly) in any markets they choose to compete in. And, that they want to offer a product to customers that provides value.

Obviously, you can read anything you'd like into a simple statement such as "Do No Evil", but I think Slashdot spends way to much time analyzing every decision Google makes.

Re:Typo in headline

[quanticle]

In this, China is much like WalMart. Sure, you get the access to the world's largest middle-class, but, in return, the Chinese have you on a leash. Any time you do something internally that the Chinese dislike, they can tug the leash by threatening to revoke access to their market.

The same principle applies to WalMart. By getting access to WalMart you get access to the largest distribution system in the world. Initially, this is a huge windfall for your company. However, later on you see that you've given up a lot of control in return for access. Walmart (or China) can regulate your internal decisions by virtue of the fact that you're tied to their market.

Re:Yes they're staying--and a good thing, too.

[Ford Prefect]

Additionally, every time the Chinese engine returns censored results, isn't there a note to the effect that the document has been redacted? This would seem, in my mind, to contribute to a heightened public awareness in China as to just how pervasive the censorship regime is. This will in turn spawn more, not less, dissent, tending more towards democratic reform in the long term.

And on the other side, Google seems to be doing a very good job in getting people outside China to talk about Chinese censorship and the like. Whether you agree or disagree with Google's actions, they're definitely raising awareness of who they're dealing with.

Re:Principles? What're those?

[geoffspear]

While I disagree with GP's opinion, you're attacking a straw man. No one asked if you'd prefer a censored Google to a non-censored Google. He asked if you'd prefer a censored Google or no Google at all.

Yes, a censored search engine is worthless.

So every search engine in existence is worthless? I disagree. The degree of censorship is certainly inversely proportional to the actual value to a person searching, but unless the censorship involves removing every single possible search result, it doesn't render the search engine "worthless". Would a search engine that included no hardcore pornography be "worthless" if the person using it was trying to find information about chemistry?