A single person can take one action for two different contradictory reasons. How much more so a company of thousands. This neither negates the good reasons nor washes away the bad ones, but nevertheless, we applaud because we approve of the action.
Besides, look around. How many companies would even pretend to do this for moral reasons? We've legally mandated moral cowardice in our corporations (by mandating that they must increase shareholder value above all else), and to see a company even pay lip service as a reason to something else is refreshing.
(Though if they don't follow through and either provide an uncensored feed or truly leave soon, it will just be lip service.)
Those who still say that Google's hardly an angel here, I refer you to my previous statement about how we've mandated moral cowardice; is it really a surprise that this step could only be taken in addition to other "ulterior motives"? It would be illegal for Google to just pull out of a market because they were offended, and they could face shareholder lawsuits. In the end they must still believe this is a profitable move. (If only to contain losses caused by espionage...) But they have other options, "suck it up" being among them, so there is still at least a smidgen of courage here.
Having ulterior motives doesn't necessarily make something wrong. Even if Google had business and other reasons to stop censuring and get out of the market the lasting effect is to focus peoples' attention on Chinese human rights violations.
Sure- it might in the end help Google too, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth applauding.
If a company has figured out how to give some of its profits to helping social cause X solve social problem y, that's great but ultimately sustainable only on the margins of our economic world. If this company has figured out how to make money from social cause X solve social problem y they'll do as much of that as they can. Other companies will join in. Social cause x will be far more helped.
You can always say that companies ultimately want to make money. Politicians ultimately want to get elected, preserve legacy, ego or whatever. Private people are only motivated by a desire to make themselves feel good, important, powerful, create a legacy, etc. etc.
You can always go back and question reasons. For serious movers you can usually find "ulterior" motives.
We applaud how politicians get elected. We applaud how companies choose to pursue agendas. That's all their is.
* It seems improbable to me that Google is ultimately motivated by a desire to protect IP.
Business is not civil rights movement. Even if a human rights activist builds a business, compromise has to be taken time to time for its primary purpose as a business entity and it's more complex matter than something anyone can simply call hypocritical. Therefore, I highly appreciate Google for having made the difficult decision this time, encouraging it to make more in the future.
I believe the motto is "Don't be evil." I keep seeing "Do no evil" in places, including on large news sites, which is odd, because it completely lacks the sense of humor of "Don't be evil."
"Because, worst of all, Google is effectively walking away. A human rights situation that they could have had a voice in is abandoned."
If the firewall entirely blocks Google, what more could they do? From what I gathered, the Chinese would have to effectively make it impossible to access Google, and at that point, what more can the company do? Sure they can try and invent ways to circumvent the firewall, but do you expect them to do that? If not, don't call that walking away.
Interesting that there has been no response from Beijing yet. We're all waiting for them to add the now-unfiltered google.cn to the firewall, but doing so would be in some way accepting Google's argument - making them look weak. I guess their best option would be to make no formal response to Google's allegations, leave the site unblocked for a few weeks until everyone loses interest, and then block it on a routine batch with a load of other sites... ideally when something more important has just happened in the rest of the world.
> Privacy and Security. Google is committed to protecting consumer privacy and confidentiality. Prior to the launch of Google.cn, Google conducted intensive reviews of each of our services to assess the implications of offering it directly in China. We are always conscious of the fact that data may be subject to the jurisdiction of the country where it is physically stored. With that in mind, we concluded that, at least initially, only a handful of search engine services would be hosted in China.
We will not store data somewhere unless we are confident that we can meet our expectations for the privacy and security of users’ sensitive information. As a practical matter, meeting this user interest means that we have no plans to host Gmail, Blogger, and a range of other such services in China.
Good or Bad, right or wrong, it is possible that this will have a psychological impact on other multi-national corporations, in which they will realize that they don't have to deal with China on China's terms.
I have a different take on the whole China thing and I believe that until the Chinese people bring about change that China has the right as a sovereign nation, to set any rules they want and that if American businesses don't like it then they should leave.
This is a huge problem with America, our business men "explore new markets" in some tin pot dictators land and that tin pot dictator, as usual, does something that big Amari-corp does not like and the we send in the cavalry. When in reality the corporation should have packed up and went home and told Mr. Tin Pot that they will be back when he can act appropriate.
No matter what the motive was, I commend Google for not lobbying and wasting American tax dollars to protect their business interest in a foreign land and for realizing that if the terms are not agreeable, the proper thing to do is leave the market no try to impose you will via governmental and military influence.
I hope that it will sever as an example to other businesses that they can leave a market if the terms are not agreeable. If enough do this, then it will surely bring about reform.
I have a different take on the whole China thing and I believe that until the Chinese people bring about change that China has the right as a sovereign nation, to set any rules they want
Does this view extend, say, to the German and Soviet regimes of the mid 20th century?
However, Germany decided to encroach upon the sovereignty of other nations. This is where the line is crossed. And the USSR did change from the inside.
If you spend your whole life waiting for someone to save you instead of saving yourself, you will lead a life of desperate misery.
By what criteria should one decide the boundaries and rulers of a nation? If someone with lots of guns takes over the state of Texas right now and declares that he can do anything he wants due to national sovereignty, will you respect that claim?
Lost in the noise is the fact that the Chinese government is not longer only censoring and intermittently blocking Google sites, they are now actively attacking the infrastructure. That has a business cost.
I’m just left frustrated by those rallying around the move. Because, worst of all, Google is effectively walking away. A human rights situation that they could have had a voice.
Sorry to be idealistic but I think Google is having a strong voice. Google will likely to reachable to those enterprising enough to get past the great firewall.
If Google had just wanted to walk away, there are a thousand other ways they could have done this.
Any large company who does a seemingly good act is almost always motivated by how it will enhance the business to do it.
Google stopping censorship will make most people think "Google really are a nice caring company" which will make them want to use them instead of "evil" Microsoft etc.
People who don't understand this either don't really understand big business or have never been around a large company before.
Corporate social responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility) is an increasingly popular concept in management and the benefits to a company can be as abstract as enhancing market position or PR. It makes perfect sense for a company like Google to take a risky, socially responsible move like this for the reasons they've publicly stated (and note that the implied reasons did also include issues related to infrastructure and IP security). While we don't know exactly what their motives are, I see no reason to believe that they are vastly different than what google has stated.
Don't forget that the core elements of google's corporate identity, regardless of whether it's just an ideal, are "do no evil" and "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." I have no doubt that at least some executives as google, almost certainly including sergey and larry, feel that maintaining this corporate identity is important.
Google's leadership is taking a strong stance against China. A stronger one than governments are willing to take[1]. If they're prioritizing ethics over the profits of the company, they're just an anomaly. The responsible parties could be fired for stating so, since the stockholders employ them to prioritize the profits of the company over all other non-legal concerns.
If they're doing it because it increases their profits, then it is bigger news: it means "Don't be evil" works. The market is more closely aligned with "bettering the world" than most people believe. Corporations have always seemed less ethical than governments in the past, so it's a very exciting possibility.
The author argues that Google's actions in China were not motivated by ethics. Unlike the author, I think that is an exciting thought.
Corporations (legal but not natural persons) have historically caused less deaths than states (sovereign entities with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.) In this meaning states too are corporations just a special type.
Joint stock corporations without a defined end of life are an innovation dating from approximately 1500. I contend that on a net, and probably a gross accounting of lives lost due to action by states have consistently outnumbered those due to corporations.
Given that states have a monopoly on violence it is a trivial consequence that their actions will cause more deaths than corporate actions. Sovereign actors typically exceed non-sovereign ones in capability for violence. Even where this is not true the corporation is constrained by the will of it's sponsor state, and as such ultimate responsibility lies with the state sponsor of the corporation.
Given that we have no examples of sovereign corporations (sub-type, profit maximising) little information is contained in my original snarky comment. I contend, in agreement with the Emperor of the Rightwing Wingnutosphere Mencius Moldbug, that a sovereign entity with a clear goal of profit seeking will be less murderous than one without a clearly defined and measurable goal (all of them, barring the Holy See, which aims to convert all humanity to Roman Catholicism.)
tl:dr Given the vast differences in capabilty between sovereign and non-sovereign corporations the difference in their headcounts is a trivial consequence. Conceded.
Because 'don't be evil' is one thing (a good thing).
But here they seem to be going for 'do the right thing', which is a whole different plan.
This will cost them, at least short term. That's part of what 'the right thing' means.
Originally they said they believed that collaborating would do more good than not doing.
Now they are saying that they no longer believe that, and will no longer collaborate.
I am sceptical, but I still applaud it.
We can be cynical too. Let us show them that those sort of actions are appreciated.
For instance, their share price is falling. Let those who are keen on real altruism buy shares to drive it back up.
Perhaps we can create a climate where good corporate behaviour is actually profitable, and where corporations and governments fear to be caught in the act of evil.
> Because, worst of all, Google is effectively walking away. A human rights situation that they could have had a voice in is abandoned. The only losers in this debacle are the Chinese people.
So far they've actually only done the "voice" part, not the walking away.
But I agree, Joe Zhongguo is probably the loser either way.
Seems more strategic than humanitarian, though mainstream reporters rarely seem to see through it. That said, I like and admire a lot of what Googles does. And I think they have a lot of good intentions.
It's just that when you try to pass off your actions as humanitarian, when really that is not the whole story, it always comes back to bite you in the end (simply because any type of duplicity adds entropy into the system). Pulling out of China and missing those huge opportunities, financially and morally, is an example of something that might trip them up in the long run.
What gave you the impression that their investment in power was humanitarian? Where did Google claim that their decision in investing in green power was altruistic?
They are very upfront about this being an investment in R&D where the primary focus will be to be carbon neutral for their data-centers and offices, which might lead to other business opportunity.
Just because you have a wrong interpretation of actual events, doesn't make them wrong.
That interview isn't bad. But take the first sentence of this article:
'Google Inc (GOOG.O) has asked the main U.S. energy regulator for authority to trade electricity in the wholesale market, which will make it easier for the Internet search giant to obtain renewable energy to power its huge data centers as part of its green initiative.'
A more factual, 'actual events'-oriented article might begin:
'Google Inc (GOOG.O) has asked the main U.S. energy regulator for authority to trade electricity in the wholesale market, which will make it easier for the Internet search giant to obtain cheap energy.'
I.e., real reporting shouldn't be about what Google 'plans' to do, or how good their intentions are. Real reporting is -- what have they done? What they've done is apply for status as a wholesale trader of energy so that they can get energy more cheaply.
Maybe they have good intentions with green energy, maybe they have good intentions in China. But it's easy to confuse their intentions and miss what actually has been done.
Though on the other hand, perhaps you're correct. Perhaps Google makes no claims to be 'humanitarian' or 'altruistic' etc. But by trying to pass the thing off as 'green' and 'carbon-neutral', it's easy to give them a free pass, i.e., some sort of unique status that will allow them to get energy more cheaply than everyone else.
> But by trying to pass the thing off as 'green' and 'carbon-neutral', it's easy to give them a free pass,
Their approach _is_ green renewal energy and their goal _is_ to go carbon-neutral; they are not trying to "pass" it as such or being pretentious about it. This _is_ how they are approaching it for real.
Please read the interview link I provided.
There is nothing altruistic and humanitarian or pretention about their intention; its just good business. Good PR is icing on the cake.
It is good to keep a check on becoming too enamored with Google's plans though. I mention this because I actually do care a lot about Google's role in the next decade, etc. Like anyone who is ambitious, they are arguably sometimes a little too precocious for their own good. And sometimes they make mistakes, but sometimes they get away with things because we want to believe they are always doing the right thing. But that can encourage bad, unsustainable behavior. Speaking about things VERY GENERALLY, but I'd just as soon they avoid that.
I'm thinking even as far back as Google's somewhat novel IPO. Or their Google Books situation. There's this idea that gets promulgated during these events that somehow they're doing things completely differently than a normal corporation. That there is nothing particularly 'corporate' in the traditional sense about what they're doing. I don't know. It just has never really sounded completely clear to me. But maybe that's just me.
There are two ways to look at this - the most up-voted comment, "Having ulterior motives doesn't necessarily make something wrong" and the most down-voted, "Seems more strategic than humanitarian."
i think you're right to raise the issue of transparency. see, for example, the article here on how snow falls can no longer be so easily mis-reported - information is becoming more freely available, and the costs of being contradictory are probably going to rise.
[seems we're back at the "voting stuff down i don't agree with" rather than "voting stuff down that's not good conversation". i think you made a good point, so i've voted you back up to unity.]
This is a valid legal point, but not a valid moral one.
In a normal society, we recognize that being "legal" and being "moral" are different things, and that you cannot and generally shouldn't try to legislate for morality.
We expect individual citizens to behave both legally and morally. This means we sometimes expect citizens to do something that isn't strictly required by law (e.g. assisting someone who has been in a car accident rather than just driving by).
In law though, corporations are also "citizens" - but they have an additional obligation to act solely in the best interests of their shareholders (the shareholders can sue the directors for not doing this).
So we're left with a society in which all corporations not only are, but are legally required to be sociopaths.
There's a docufilm called "The Corporation" that makes this point fairly well.
Besides, look around. How many companies would even pretend to do this for moral reasons? We've legally mandated moral cowardice in our corporations (by mandating that they must increase shareholder value above all else), and to see a company even pay lip service as a reason to something else is refreshing.
(Though if they don't follow through and either provide an uncensored feed or truly leave soon, it will just be lip service.)
Those who still say that Google's hardly an angel here, I refer you to my previous statement about how we've mandated moral cowardice; is it really a surprise that this step could only be taken in addition to other "ulterior motives"? It would be illegal for Google to just pull out of a market because they were offended, and they could face shareholder lawsuits. In the end they must still believe this is a profitable move. (If only to contain losses caused by espionage...) But they have other options, "suck it up" being among them, so there is still at least a smidgen of courage here.