Internet Wall of Shame: Google-China Update
RConversation is still in daily multilink mode. Yesterday’s helping is here.
Nicholas Carr says Google is getting blasted more than other Wall of Shame members because its “Do No Evil” slogan represents a big “Hit Me” sign:
I think the reason Google is getting its feet held to the fire is simple: It asked for it. As soon as the company broadcast its “Don’t Be Evil” pledge, it guaranteed that any time it stepped into ethically ambiguous territory it was going to touch off a firestorm in the press - and, in turn, draw the attention of the public and the public’s media-hungry elected representatives. It’s the old Gary Hart effect. Plenty of Senators get a little on the side without finding their dalliances on Page One, but as soon as Hart claimed to be pure, he guaranteed that reporters and cameramen would come knocking on the door of his lovenest. Whether it was hubris or just naivete that led Google to proclaim its moral purity can be debated, but from a business standpoint it was a surpassingly dumb thing to do - and the consequences were entirely predictable.
Finally, The Wall Street Journal (link requires subscription) stakes out ground in the middle:
China’s leaders have made a bet that they can have economic growth, and the exposure to the outside world that it requires, while maintaining political control. In the long run, we continue to think that’s a losing bet. Google may have its own business dilemma, but the modern dictator’s dilemma is that the path to economic progress demands a loosening of centralized control on just about everything, including information.
As for Google’s executives, we also hope that, even as they make their business compromises with the Communists, they don’t forget their larger obligations to promoting the freedom that has made them as rich as they are.
The wild card is whether Google and other kowtowing search engines will hasten the growth of freedom, slow it down, or kill it. It would be nice if everyone, including those on the left who seemingly aren’t paying attention, would stay on Google’s case about the obligations The Journal mentioned.
