Google China - Commercial Practicality Versus Ethical Idealism

I'll admit that my first response when I read that Google has agreed to censor some of its content in China was a resounding, "WTF"??!!! But then I settled down a bit and considered the situation. Here's a blurb from the article on Reuters:

Google said on Tuesday it will block politically sensitive terms on its new China search site and not offer e-mail, chat and blog publishing services, which authorities fear can become flashpoints for social or political protest. Those actions go further than many of its biggest rivals in China.

"I didn't think I would come to this conclusion -- but eventually I came to the conclusion that more information is better, even if it is not as full as we would like to see," Brin told Reuters in an interview in Switzerland.

Brin is Sergey Brin, the Co-Founder and President of Technology at Google, and he makes a good point. Or does he? On the surface, the issue seems simple - a choice between no Google or a censored version of Google. In that context, one can hardly blame Brin and pals. After all, half of something is always better than all of nothing. That makes the decision to offer a limited version of the 800 lb search gorilla seem almost altruistic. One might even wonder why it took them so long. But suppose the premise that China needs Google, even if only abbreviated, is bunk. Then what?

Reportedly censored are search terms regarding Taiwan's independence and the massacre at Tiananmen Square in 1989, among many other freedom/democracy/human rights topics. It is also important to note that Google has already been subject to censorship for some time now because of what is called the Great Firewall - China's state-run censorship program (nice). So again, the question - does China really need Google so much that it is ultimately worth it to give it to them with these restrictions? According to CNN, If you can believe one of Google's lawyers, then yes.

"We firmly believe, with our culture of innovation, Google can make meaningful and positive contributions to the already impressive pace of development in China," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's senior policy counsel.

Whatever you have to tell yourself, Andy. Let me break this down for you. Google is good, really good, but for the average internet user, the qualitative difference between Google and some other search engine is about nil. Maybe it's a little faster, but so what - I'd bet that most people can't even tell you why everyone uses Google. Hell, back in the days when I thought I was cool using MetaCrawler (believe it or not, it's still around), it never occurred to me that I could have been getting even better results than I was getting. I got results, I clicked, and away I went. Just like everyone else. So to suggest that the execs at Google finally decided to be pragmatic about crossing what used to be a fairly distinct line in the sand (Their motto is, "Don't be evil."), simply because China needs better search capabilities is pretty flimsy.

To understand why, you only need to know how Google makes money. Ads, ads, and more ads. If you look at the most recent SEC submission, you'll notice that in the first nine months of 2005, Google made over $4 Billion (yes, with a B) in ad revenues, versus a little over $50 Million in other revenues. They accomplish this because everyone uses Google to search, which means Google can sell contextual ads for everything you can possibly imagine. (You know the little text ads you see everywhere? Advertisers pay a few pennies every time you click one. You can literally hear the cha-ching at Google HQ in Mountain View, California.) Now, all they have to do to generate even more incredible revenues is to start selling ads to folks in places where online advertising is just waking up, just becoming useful.

It's about the Asian land grab. Period. Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft know that as China and the rest of Asia continue to grow, what has happened here is going to happen there. And right now, there is no 800 lb Gorilla (or even 500 lb Panda), so this is a profit deal disguised as an altruism deal. Or maybe that's pushing it a bit. I don't think anyone at Google would characterize this as some Internet Ghandi thing. But there's no question that they have resisted the requests of the Chinese government in the past, and now, after an "excruciating decision," they're on board, and they're saying that the change is because they'll do some good. Bunk.

And here we are at the business ethics turning point. On one hand, we (I'll be Google for a moment.) have the potential to stake out what looks to be another gold rush in the coming years. On the other hand, as the largest, most respected Internet company on the planet, we are in a position to make a statement about why we're where we are. You think Google would be anything if an oppressive Uncle Sam controlled the internet?

I recognize that, in terms of quality of internet experience, it is immaterial to anyone in China whether or not Google censors its own content (since it'll be censored by the Great Firewall anyway). But isn't acquiescence tantamount to assent here? When do we have a responsibility to the other people on this planet to be vocal about what human rights are all about? Instead of just burying the old line and gingerly drawing a new one, why don't we put Google to work for the oppressed?

You know when you mistype something and Google comes up with the suggestion? You know, the "did you mean..." deal. Well, what if when "Taiwan Independence" is searched, it comes back with no results (per the restrictions), but in the "Did you mean...," if says, "How to break away from totalitarian nutjobs?" Then, away they go to the land of free ideas on the real internet. So easy. And I do this in my spare time.

In closing, let me just say...

1. Google, your decision to give in to China is a rationalization in the face of obscene potential profits. Accept it, and stop trying to con everyone including yourselves.

2. I'm all for profit, and I would never dream of disparaging someone for pursuing it ethically. However, governments and international institutions are not the only ones who can impose sanctions on countries for behaving badly. It's time to put profit aside to set an example. Censorship is wrong - especially the kind of censorship that goes on in China. We do ourselves (as a country) no good by preaching free speech and then profiting off the exact opposite.