Defending Google
Since Google's decision to bow to Chinese censorship demands a lot of people, including myself, have taken to criticizing the company for abandoning their stated "we don't censor" principles. A few others, exemplified by Jon Henke of Q and O in this post, have defended Google against this criticism.
Here is the crux of Jon's argument:
Read the whole thing.
This line of reasoning circles around an idea of "creeping liberties." As an oppressed society is exposed to certain liberties it becomes harder for the regime in charge to continue the oppression. Which is something I agree with. I have often said that one of the best ways to spread democracy is to show the oppressed what they are missing out on. Show them the conveniences free people enjoy, like the ability to watch any movie they want whenver they want. Or check out any book from the library they'd like. Eventually, the oppressed will begin to demand these freedoms for themselves.
The problem with the Google situation, however, is that I don't think it fulfills this idea of "creeping liberties." Presumably the Chinese population was able to search the internet prior to the coming of Google and could then only find state-approved websites and images. What new liberty has Google added? The Chinese people are still only finding state-approved websites and images even with the availability of Google. The only thing that has happened here is Google has gained access to a massive new market, but done so at the expense of one of the company's core principles. Heck, one of democracy's core principles.
I don't find that to be a defensible position at all.
I should add that I am not against American businesses doing business with China in general. That being said, simply doing business with the Chinese marketplace is one thing. Getting in bed with that Communist government's censorship policies is quite another.
Here is the crux of Jon's argument:
As far as I can tell, the Chinese people are almost certainly better off with a commie-modified Google than without it. Perfect does not have to be the enemy of good.
Read the whole thing.
This line of reasoning circles around an idea of "creeping liberties." As an oppressed society is exposed to certain liberties it becomes harder for the regime in charge to continue the oppression. Which is something I agree with. I have often said that one of the best ways to spread democracy is to show the oppressed what they are missing out on. Show them the conveniences free people enjoy, like the ability to watch any movie they want whenver they want. Or check out any book from the library they'd like. Eventually, the oppressed will begin to demand these freedoms for themselves.
The problem with the Google situation, however, is that I don't think it fulfills this idea of "creeping liberties." Presumably the Chinese population was able to search the internet prior to the coming of Google and could then only find state-approved websites and images. What new liberty has Google added? The Chinese people are still only finding state-approved websites and images even with the availability of Google. The only thing that has happened here is Google has gained access to a massive new market, but done so at the expense of one of the company's core principles. Heck, one of democracy's core principles.
I don't find that to be a defensible position at all.
I should add that I am not against American businesses doing business with China in general. That being said, simply doing business with the Chinese marketplace is one thing. Getting in bed with that Communist government's censorship policies is quite another.
Jack Lee
richNJ
QueenZel
Proof
Greg
robert108
Kevin
Gene
