I must agree with the initial thesis my colleague Adam, who writes that Google Was Evil, Is Evil, and Will Be Evil. I urge him to stick to his guns, despite a polite reply to Philipp Lenssen of Google Blogoscoped, who has challenged the (clearly prevalent) viewpoint that Google has shed its (apparently gilded) “good guy” reputation. Lenssen’s response seems an appeal more to emotion than to reason.
Google has great tools, and yes they started out with no advertising, but Google — a public company in its current incarnation — exists primarily to provide shareholder value via the exploitation of its useful services to drive revenue.
It is not a “good†company if it derives revenue from its services in such a manner that its clients and audience consider it more classy. Eschewing pop-up ads, content-covering ads, or other obnoxious forms of corporate promotion don’t make Google “good,†but merely savvy, as they are clearly focused on the long-term.
But there are ethical limits to a long-term focus. Google appeasers sound like any of a number of ends-justify-the-means historical apologists.
Are Google supporters so callow as to argue that censoring search terms is somehow benign? What if the NYTimes, as a condition of maintaining its print and web presence in China, voluntarily agreed to remove from its coverage and its content any mention of injustice at the hands of the Chinese regime? I certainly hope Times readers would see this is a total abrogation of a newspaper’s mission of informing the public, a mission all the more critical when that information is contrary to the wishes of a ruling elite.
How then is it any less critical for Google to allow all speech to reach those who would use the search portal as a means to access truth? Google has a responsibility just as great as any one newspaper, and in its aggregation of many news sources, as great as all newspapers combined, to allow information to flow freely.
The argument, by Google apologists, appears to be that the Chinese people will benefit so greatly from a legally-obtainable ability to search via Google, even with restrictions in place, that Google should clearly violate its own stated goal to not do evil. This is absurd, and presumes rather haughtily that Google is somehow an essential service and not merely another search offering.
Chinese dissidents will still be able to search for officially restricted information via proxy servers whether or not Google chooses to remain chummy with the Chinese authorities. Competitors like Yahoo and Baidu already provide basic search services. Google isn’t providing potable water, and no matter how much they’d like to think that they are filling some indispensable need they do not offer life-sustaining services, so there is no wisp of an argument for a “greater-good†plea.
What a deal with the Chinese government does allow is for Google to continue its profitable ventures in that country free of official condemnation.
Google, get over yourself. You are marginally more effective than your competitors at search and vastly smarter when it comes to data aggregation and advertising. Your stockholders should feel proud of your determination to increase profits by officially opening your platform to a Chinese audience. Your adherents, such as they are, should stop deluding themselves that your corporate mindset represents any but the most cynical.
