Google Search: Backbone
May 17th, 2007
Submitted By: Ryan Maaskamp
After a standoff between Google and Thailand’s government and a resulting countrywide ban on the website YouTube, Google has agreed to remove videos that are said to be insulting to Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej. This is not the first time Google has backed down on censorship issues. Recall the issue involving Google and the Chinese government in which Google removed politically sensitive subjects from their search results including the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
Google did show some signs of courage by refusing to remove two videos that were deemed offensive by the Thai government. Regardless, Google’s actions make me question their true interests. Is Google still following its original mission of “organizing the world’s information and making it universally accessible and useful”, or have they compromised their values for future returns ?
Entry Filed under: Pre-Departure, Beijing, China, Misc.
11 Comments Add your own
1. Bonnie Morse | May 17th, 2007 at 10:32 am
I think Google is running into the challenge of respecting cultural differences while making information available to everyone at the same time. On the one hand, Google wants to continue its global expansion. On the other hand, it recognizes that not all countries share the same emphasis on “freedom of speech” as the United States.
While it does appear that Google has compromised its mission for future gains, I also think Google foresees eventual decreases in government censorship. As places like Thailand and China continue to grow, standards of living and freedoms should increase. This means that, theoretically, Google will be able to gradually decrease its censorship practices. To me it seems this topic also reflects the constant corporate governance battle of providing returns for shareholders vs. maintaining ethical business practices. Who does Google have a “duty” to, the citizens of China and Thailand or shareholders? The answer should be “both,” but I think only time will tell if Google is able to balance these often competing interests.
2. Chris Carr | May 17th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Good post.
Thais love their King. Picking on him in any way is a big, big no-no there. It can cause deep, deep offense to them.
3. Meghan Girvin | May 19th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Google complying with the requests of Thailand’s government does not signal a failure to stick to its original mission. They are still organizing the world’s information and making it available, just because they don’t make all information available to everyone does not mean they are compromising their values. Google understands that not every country operates like the United States does and that if they want to do business in other countries they need to follow their laws. It seems like an outrage to Americans that information is censored in China and Thailand, but that is because our country was built on a foundation of freedom of speech and it has always been one of our basic rights. We need to remember that not all countries have the same history that we do and therefore different things are appropriate in different places. Google is doing a good job of expanding their business while at the same time understanding that the American way does not work everywhere.
4. Christopher Arena | May 20th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
This is an ethical debate at its finest. Should Google continue with their mission of providing information to the world, or se-come to the pressures of an foreign government in the name of higher profits? Google backed down on this issue because they stand to make more money with access to Thailand, then money lost because of a negative reaction or backlash from other users. Simple cost analysis. IF and that is a big IF Google was still a private company, they might have been more willing to stand up for the freedom of information and freedom from censorship because they wouldn’t have to answer to some hundred million shareholders who want a high share-price, not a socially conscious firm. Personally, I don’t see how Google could have ever kept the information available. They are an American corporation trying to impose American values on a foreign country. How would we like it if a foreign country tried to impose their beliefs on us? We probably wouldn’t like it to much…
5. Adib Assassi | May 20th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
I don’t think that the Googe situations in Thailand and China have anything to do with beliefs of cultural differences. The issue here is Google not allowing certain populations to access information that it allows the rest of the world access to. It is essentially discrimination. If these countries have customs or policies that conflict with Google then their governments should enforce them.
I wish that companies like Google would take a stand and not appease countries in order to earn more revenues. It is the principle of the matter. I understand that public corporations have the duty to serve the interests of their shareholders first, so they are not doing anything wrong. But since Google and other large corporations have so much clout, it would be nice if they would take a stand for human rights when they are in a position to do so. They can make a real difference in the world. In fact, taking such a stand would probably get Google great publicity that would increase its value.
6. lonniebhodge | May 21st, 2007 at 7:35 am
Meghan,
I would like to hear your views on my recent post and decision to boycott Google on my blog.
Now that Google has gone public their responsibility is to profit, not the ideals that made them an enviable entrepreneurial success…
Lon
7. Chuck Rylant | May 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
This is always a complicated issue, but in the end, Google must follow the rules of the country they are doing business in.
8. Ashley Smith | May 24th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Essentially Google had to choose between the lesser of two evils. It could either provide China with no information at all or it could provide China with information that complies with the government regulations. Neither option is exactly aligned with Google’s mission and neither option is ideal. However, I think the most important thing is that because of Google the people of China have unimaginable amounts of information available to them despite the restrictions. It’s almost like freedom of information has wedged its foot in China’s door. I think it’s just a small step in a much larger process.
9. Chris Carr | May 24th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Ashley raises a good point, and welcome to the real world of business … damned if you do; and damned if you don’t.
10. Kerry Huang | May 25th, 2007 at 1:20 am
I think people are missing a point here. Google is a business, not a charity. Businesses are in it for the money no matter how hard they spin their missions statements.
Who is to say that these videos are really “information” and “useful”? If they are not then Google really isn’t going against their mission statement.
11. Chris Carr | May 25th, 2007 at 8:39 am
All good comments.
When we are in China, and another reason I encourage people to bring a laptop (teams must each bring one), is so you can test in the comfort of your hotel room what you can access in China and what you cannot. That in turn will shed light on this important debate for you. See, e.g., Lonnie’s post at Google’s New Motto: Do A Little Evil. I learned some new things by reading this.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed