Censorship in China: Cost of Doing Business? - The Action
(Page 2 of 4 )
I'll start specifically with what Google did to earn itself this condemnation. I'm getting my information chiefly from the statement that Google sent to the Congressional Human Rights Caucus briefing early this month, as well as sources in the press (though quotes in this paragraph and the next will be from that statement). Google didn't just arbitrarily decide to create a censored, local version of itself in China. According to the search engine, it was receiving reports that its service in China left something to be desired, "due in large measure to the extensive filtering performed by Chinese Internet service providers (ISPs)." Problems included painfully slow service, frequent unavailability, and results that stalled out the user's browser. In Google's opinion, it could only solve these problems by creating a local service inside China.
Obviously, in order to operate the service inside China, Google had to "remove some sensitive information from our search results. These restrictions are imposed by Chinese laws, regulations, and policies." But Google doesn't exactly remain mute about this; when it has to remove results, it includes a note, clearly visible on the SERPs page, disclosing this fact. "This is not, to be sure, a tremendous advance in transparency to users, but it is at least a meaningful step in the right direction."
Certain other services that Google offers will not be available at all in China. Its blogging service is one example. Officials in China consider it too sensitive, and too likely to create political flashpoints that the Chinese government would prefer not to deal with.
Is this move really worthy of the outcry that Google has received? In a sense, Google was just trying to improve its service to certain users. Okay, perhaps that is simply a thin rationalization, but consider this: Google's action has been tarred with the same brush that was used on Microsoft and Yahoo! for potentially more obnoxious actions.
In Microsoft's case, the company admitted that it removed the blog of an outspoken Chinese journalist from its MSN Spaces site, and that it censored words like "freedom" and "democracy" from its Chinese MSN portal site. In Yahoo!'s case, the company was accused of providing information that was used by Chinese officials to convict a journalist charged with leaking state secrets. If Yahoo! really did this, its employees will have Shi Tao on their consciences for the next 10 years.
I would like to point out that in all cases, these companies were merely following the law of the land in which they chose to do business. Granted, we have a long history in the United States of civil disobedience and even breaking the law to do business (just consider how many fine Boston banking fortunes were based on practices we would consider questionable today) -- but that doesn't give us the right to export our traditions. Please keep that in mind as you read about the reactions to what these companies have done.
Next: The Reaction >>
More Search Engine News Articles
More By Terri Wells
