In Defense of Google

I have already written about this topic back in January. Google made a statement in January about this, and today, Google posted its Congressional testimony on this matter. The testimony is definitely worth a read.

Do no evil? But censorship is evil!
As Google states in its testimony and as I can attest from experience, the censorship was already going on before this started. The government tries to filter requests as they are sent to Google's U.S. servers and accessibility to the U.S.-based google.com is slow and spotty. Most importantly, even when the search results are not censored, access to most "undesirable" websites are blocked anyway. Offering a new google.cn service in addition to google.com and giving users the choice between fast but censored searches on google.cn or government-crippled but uncensored searches on google.com is not evil (especially since many day-to-day searches are on uncensored non-taboo subjects). Those in China who really care about politics often are aware of how to use proxies to bypass China's Internet security (which is what I did when I visited), and those people were never affected before and will continue to remain unaffected. In the end, offering choice is not evil. Google has not taken anything away from the users and while implementing de jure censoring on content that was already censored de facto does not stand on the highest of principles, it has no real effect good or bad in reality. And remember, these are just search results.

They are making a quick buck over there!
And this is wrong because...? They have employees to pay, servers to run, etc. They are a business, and businesses are supposed to make money. It is not ethical for businesses to make money by doing evil, but if they are not doing evil, then there should be no reason why they cannot pursue some profit. So the argument about making money works only in conjunction with being evil; it does not stand on its own. Considering Google's support of open source, open standards, encouragement of employees to drive green vehicles, etc., Google certainly strikes me as less evil than other money-seeking entities.

IBM helped the Nazis kill the Jews, just like how Google and others are now helping China!
Confirming Godwin's Law, House Rep. Lantos compared this to IBM's punch card technology helping the Nazis exterminate the Jews by facilitating logistics. When in doubt, sensationalize. There are differences here, however. First, filtering is fairly easy and can be crudely implemented without any sort of special technology. This would be akin to the Nazis having bought screwdrivers from the United States; they could make screwdrivers themselves fairly easily. Rep. Christopher Smith at one point expresses dismay that American technology is being used by the Chinese government for their nefarious deeds, demonstrating poor understanding of the issue; the Chinese have their own filters that they will happily apply if Americans do not use their own. Second, the Great Firewall of China is already quite adept at filtering, so this would be akin to the United States supplying the Nazis with excess screwdrivers when the Nazis already had enough of their own. More importantly, one must ask what the alternative is. Not doing business in China? In that case, then Chinese companies will quickly fill that gap, and I would much rather have an American company with headquarters safely outside of China censoring search results than a Chinese company under the nose of the Chinese government doing it.

[added] But Google actions are endorsing and legitimizing the CCP!
This was an interesting objection raised in one of the comments to this blog entry. I doubt that Google complying with the laws constitutes any real political effect beyond the touch Romantic symbolism that activists hold so dear. Furthermore, it is a mistake to confuse doing something out in response to circumstances with doing something because it truly believes in it, and we must not forget that the real political weight lies with the Western governments' legitimization of China.

Will someone please think of the children?
House Rep. Lantos asked Google today, "I'm asking you a direct question (about families)--I don't want your philosophy." This was after Lantos had asked Yahoo! about the well-being of the family of the journalist whose name Yahoo! handed over. Google has done no such thing (and by keeping Gmail and other services out of China, it is avoiding such a possibility), and no family has ever been hurt by image searches of Tian'an'men showing rosy pictures instead of tanks. That Lantos asked Google and Microsoft a question that was appropriate only for Yahoo! demonstrates either a lack of understanding of the issue, or, more likely, a desire to politically capitalize off of the sensationalism. Listening to some of the remarks made by Congress today, it seems that this has turned into a three-ring circus and that some people are using it for political gain.

But none of this changes the fact that the Chinese government is evil and totalitarian!
I agree! The problem is not the moral compass of these companies, it is the evil regime in China (I think we would all rejoice the day when it finally falls). But in the meantime, whether we like it or not, when in China, you have to obey Chinese laws. Americans would balk if other people came to the United States and ignored American laws. If Congress has such an aversion with China, then perhaps it should be considering diplomatic solutions. Is the American government prepared to back companies up if they do business in China, refuse to obey Chinese laws, and are faced with an angry Chinese government? Unless Congress can somehow give American companies some sort of teeth with which to resist the requirements of the Chinese government, then it is in no moral position to criticize companies for things that are out of their power.

In the end, critics attack the censorship, but they fail to offer any insight as to how that censorship can be dealt with. There is nothing that these companies can do that can change the political reality in China, and when an absolute "non-evil" is not possible, then one has to accept the lesser of evils. Understandably, people are not comfortable with that notion, but perhaps this analogy would help. Normally, shooting your pet would be an immoral and "evil" thing to do. What if your pet is ill and will die soon? Ideally, you would take it to a vet, but what if that was not possible? Is shooting it to put it out of its misery still immoral? This is what I mean by choosing the lesser of two evils. It may very well be that because search engine technologies have matured and are converging that the contrast between the two evils is not so well amplified, but this principle is still applicable.

This entry was edited on 2006/02/16 at 13:53:16 GMT -0500.

Comments
Post a comment »

You must know that the Chinese propaganda machine will exploit Google.cn as evidence that Google's values are not inconsistent with Beijing's censorship. This will give the censors legitimacy that they wouldn't otherwise get if Google decided to abstain. This is not a slight and subtle advantage for a regime that was ranked 159th out of 167 countries graded on the World Press Freedom Index, compiled by Reporters Without Borders(1).

In China, Google.com leaves it to the government censors to do the censoring. This leaves the opening in people's minds that maybe their government is more repressive than other countries. Google.cn adds little more than speed to what a state-censored Google.com or Baidu can provide. Internet users can now get their oppression served to them faster and more efficiently than with the competition. And when served by a liberalized, free, western corporation based in a democratic nation, acting in accordance with its own freely chosen policies, the nuanced agonizing that led to a tortured decision between two imperfect choices will not register with the chinese citizen end user.

And why not?

BECAUSE HE CAN'T READ GOOGLE'S STATEMENTS ON THE MATTER. For all intents and purposes this controversy doesn't exist. The only reality is that "supposedly" "freer" entities are no more idealistic than anyone else.

Google.cn adds no data that the censors won't allow. Google.cn adds much legitimacy to the CCP. That's a net loss for freedom. That's doing evil. Eliminating Google.cn will not increase restrictions on the flow of data into China. It will restrict the perception that the CCP is no less "free" than a western, free-market, non-government corporation.

Google did not chose the lesser of two evils. Google got in bed with the devil and left the bedroom door cracked open for the children to peer inside.

(1) http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554

For all intents and purposes this controversy doesn't exist. The only reality is that "supposedly" "freer" entities are no more idealistic than anyone else.

That is not quite how I see this issue. Granted, most Chinese people have no idea that there is this controversy going on, and for the most part, they probably will not care. I have always interpreted the gain to Chinese society and Chinese users as being in the form of a better Internet experience. In the United States, I do not choose to use Google because of its political karma (that is one reason, but not the primary reason). I choose it because it gives me better search results and thus makes the Internet a more enjoyable experience.

As for my comments about comparing Google to a local service, I recognize that in almost all cases, the censorship dished out by both will be similar and that, for the most part, no difference will exist. But, enumerated over all possible future cases (instead of just cases that are likely or cases that we have seen), I would trust an American company more.

Google.cn adds no data that the censors won't allow.

If through the use of a better search engine, people are able to find what they are looking for (non-political searches, which make up the bulk of searches on both sides of the Pacific), then I would consider that a benefit. No, they do not increase the pool of websites accessible from China, but by improving on the searching of that pool, they are adding a benefit, albeit an arguably small.

Google.cn adds much legitimacy to the CCP. That's a net loss for freedom. That's doing evil. Eliminating Google.cn will not increase restrictions on the flow of data into China. It will restrict the perception that the CCP is no less "free" than a western, free-market, non-government corporation.

Yes, it is an act granting the government legitimacy. No, it does not represent a net loss of freedom, and no, I do not think that it is "much". First, this assumes that this gesture by Google would have a significant impact on how the world views the Chinese government. As you pointed out before, most people do not care about the nuances of all this, and I doubt that there are many people in China (or in the world) who would suddenly start to respect the CCP more simply because Google made such a gesture. I believe that the political significance of this gesture is small and that its effects are very negligible. Furthermore, I believe that the gains of search engine choice and quality that is being offered outweighs this loss.

Second, there needs to be a separation between outright endorsement and accepting the reality of doing business in China. Google is not saying that it agrees with the CCP's notion that speech censorship is good. If that is what it believes, then they would have jumped in much earlier, with less reservation, and with more than just search. If you would also give them the benefit of the doubt, they claim that they are not entirely happy with this decision and that, ideally, they would not have to do this. This is not an endorsement. This is simply Google saying that it will bow down to demands of the CCP because it wants to do business in China. There is a fine line here, much like the line between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter. As long as people know that Google is doing this in order to comply with the CCP and not because it is a closet Stalin who secretly agrees with the CCP, I do not think that this is granting much legitimacy, and ultimately, I do not think that the real-world effects are in any way significant beyond.

Third, Google is not alone in this. If anything, the soft and gentle tone taken by various Western governments does much more towards legitimizing the CCP than what any individual or company can possibly dream of doing. This is a political affair that belongs in the realm of governments. I do not expect Google or any of the countless Western companies doing business in China to be able to stand up to the whims of the Chinese government if the Western governments do not back them up. To me, diplomatically recognizing the CCP government, establishing a friendly diplomatic tone, and establish massive trade ties do much more to legitimize the CCP. And in the private sector, the iconic Coca-Cola entering the Chinese market probably does much towards the legitimizing of the regime than Google.

In the end, I doubt that this legitimization has any significant effect beyond simply symbolism. We have refused to legitimize the governments of North Korea and Cuba, and look at how much little progress that has produced. If these two countries and history are to be any guide, isolating China is not the course to take, as historically, most attempts at political isolation end up hurting the people more than the government.

Most people can't read between the lines on this issue. The truth is
much more simple. The U.S. government wants control of the internet.
That means they need to get control and leverage over big search engines.

How do you get control of search engines that are abiding by U.S. law.
Simple, draft laws that they are not abiding by. Currently Sen.
Christopher Smith (R-NJ) is drafting legislation that will put search
engines in hot water. This is all orchestrated so that the government
can get leverage over the search industry.

Let's also get one thing straight. Since when has the government cared
what U.S. companies are doing in China? And why just Google, Yahoo, and
Microsoft search? There are dozens of Fortune 500 companies that have
been conforming to Chinese regulations for years. What about them?

Conclusion: Google and other search engines will lose this fight and
evenutually be forced to hand over key information about how they
operate. Once the government has reverse engineered search ranking
algorithims, they will be able to manipulate search results at their
pleasure. People will then see the results that the U.S. government
wants them to see.

Welcome to the new world order that is controled so that people never
know the truth.

Don't believe me? Read all about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/17/security.rumsfeld.reut/index.html

I never said Google is a closet Stalin that relishes its opportunity to co-oppress the Chinese people. But Google must necessarily know that their cooperation with the Chinese censorship machine will be a victory for the Chinese propaganda machine. That's how propaganda works. Its not about presenting lies as the truth; its about presenting the truth in a way that suits its agenda.

The Chinese government is always trying to make a case to its people that it doesn't engage in censorship that's any different from other countries with full freedom of the press. It claims that it only tries to minimize or control access to useless, harmful, objectionable material that is opposed to higher ideals of moral Chinese character, enlightenment, etc. The Chinese government is always trying to make a case to their people that the Chinese ways of doing things is superior, based on better character and resulting in better results. So when Google.com (heavily filtered by the government) bogs down, they make the claim that as a product its inferior to the homeland favorite, Baidu.

And when the new and improved Google.cn is launched, it operates without any government interference. The truth, according to the Chinese government (and objectively) is that the Chinese government has no inherent authority over Google to set its own internal policies. The truth, according to the Chinese government, is that the Chinese government does not censor any information about freedom movements, falun gong, human rights condemnations from the UN, Amnesty International, etc, etc. The truth, according to the Chinese government, is that Google's corporate character is that its especially opposed to censorship and believes in freedom and the democracy of the internet and open access to all information around the world. Even for the US Google rightfully deserves its reputation as being especially progressive and free.

The truth, according to the Chinese government, is that Google would never engage in any activity that goes against freedom, democracy, openness. The truth is that the Chinese government can't force Google to do anything that Google doesn't want to do. Any policies Google adopts they have decided to adopt freely in accordance with their own ideals and practices. Sure they have to abide by "local laws"... which generally translates to inane and morally neutral issues like having the proper licenses and paying fees and taxes, etc. And also maybe a few decency restrictions, which upright and morally enlightened people should enforce upon themselves, anyways.

Check out The Epoch Times or NTDTV coverage of "The Same Song" performances in Radio City Music Hall, NYC. Just by being able to report on the show's performance in western venues, the propagandists in China attempt to convince the Chinese people that western institutions are in agreement with the use of "The Same Song" as a major theme for a Chinese New Year's celebration. When in reality, of course, almost no one going to the show nor the management of Radio City Music Hall even understand the significance of "The Same Song." Once they did learn it was pretty much too late to do anything about it.

"The Same Song" is a song that was the central theme for Chinese New Year shows performed in several cities accross North America. All the Chinese government has to do is show footage of thousands of North Americans filing into these performances and having a wonderful time. Of course, they'll crop out any anti-chinese government demonstrations occurring outside of the theaters. If you don't yet know the significance of "The Same Song", and if you really do want to learn about oppression of the Chinese people not just in China but around the world, and if you want to have a better understanding of how the Chinese government uses censorship and propaganda to keep the Chinese people living in China misled, then "Google" "The Same Song" (or better yet use a different search engine).

I'm positive that many key people at the top of Google know what I'm talking about. They know about "The Same Song" and how its North American performances were a victory for the propaganda machine in China.

Google top brass knows the real impact of their self-censorship. They didn't have two less than ideal options. There is a third if not more options. They could have made a coordinated effort with Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft to send a strong and clear message to China. And the Chinese people's access to data wouldn't have been hurt in the least. Google.cn is Google.com-censored on speed. It doesn't help the Chinese people. It is a major victory for the Chinese government's efforts to convince its people that they are no worse at censoring information than a left-coast, progressive, freedom-loving, youthful, hip, free-wheelin' company based in a democratic country.

Yea, I watched bits of that show when it came over the satellite. Very glossy, very look-at-how-happy-we-are-with-the-West. I know what you mean. The music was hideous, but that's beside the point.

Anyway, while I agree that such a show might give some Chinese the impression that there is not much discord between Chinese and Western values, I think that you should give the Chinese people much more credit than that. Read this post in my blog for what I mean. Many Chinese people are aware of this censorship and they are aware of the abuses of power by the CCP. I'm sure that there are those in China who are brainwashed enough to think that Tian'an'men was an evil uprising, but I'd say that a significant number recognize it for what it is. The fact that people know that they are being censored and know that they are being fed propaganda is indicative that the propaganda is not really working as it should. Ultimately, I am still very skeptical of all the notion that this will be a propaganda boost for them. The Chinese news media, as far as I know, have yet to make any sort of comment about google.cn, and there has certainly been no effort made to turn this into some sort of propaganda orgy.

Ultimately, I am a strong believer in the good of infusing China with American culture, even if this often entails Americans bending backwards to kiss the CCP's foot. I strongly believe that the net benefit is positive. It makes me happy to see people hawking (pirated) American movies on the street, knowing what sorts of things are in those movies and even the official news coverage of American politics, however whitewashed they may be, helps because it nevertheless exposes them to our way of doing things, and in the end, little things like that will accomplish much more than any political grandstanding can do. Why am I so confident of this? I have personally seen it in how things have changed in the past decade and a half.

And yes, it would be great the American companies can stand up to China. It would first need the blessing of the government, and it will, as you mentioned, required that they band together, all of which are prospects that this controversy have made realistic. While I believe that Google has not done anything wrong, I nevertheless welcome this controversy because of what it brings to the spotlight.

On the Soapbox