Two Positions on Google vs. China

Hmmmm.  Google vs. China.  That seems like a fair match.

Google, with its corporate mantra “Don’t Be Evil,” has never been totally comfortable in China.  The Chinese administration employs an army of censors (estimated to number more than 30,000 and growing) and spends monumental amounts of money to control what its people can and can’t see on the Internet.  Critical comments disappear from Internet forums and blogs almost as soon as they are posted, and searching for information on sensitive topics produces zero results.

Google complied with the government’s requests for years, reasoning that being in China was a better position from which to try to promote openness than being outside.  Google restricted the use of search terms like (among others) “Falun Gong,” the religious movement that China considers a cult, “Dalai Lama,” whom China sees as a dangerous Tibetan dissident, and “Tiananmen Square,” which China believes is a rallying point for criticism and resistance.

The common wisdom is that China suppresses any searches for “The Three Ts” of Taiwan, Tibet and Tiananmen Square, but censors and software controls also suppress pornography, critical comments on corruption and coverage of disasters and social unrest in China.  As an example, Chinese censors shut down many Web sites around the time of the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square confrontation and put up this message:

“In order to improve the Internet content and provide a healthy environment for our netizens, we have designated 3 to 6 June as the national server maintenance day. This move is widely supported by the public.”

Personally, I think the final comment that “This move is widely supported by the public” is especially bleak.

So, back to Google.  Google detected a sophisticated hacker assault on its servers–probably not an uncommon occurrence–and investigated.  It found that the attackers tried to determine the identities of the holders of certain Gmail accounts that were used by Chinese dissidents.

During their investigation, Google’s sleuths found that about 20 other companies had come under similar attacks, and that the attacks were coming from China itself.

It seems that this was one insult too many for the people who run Google, and they decided to make some noise, including a fairly explicit threat to quit doing business in China completely if no modus vivendi can be found.

If you’ve pledged yourself to not being evil and open access to information is one of your core values, it’s hard to see what else they could have done.

There’s nothing simple about the confrontation between Google and the leaders of China, but there are lots of people who want to see it in simple terms.

[Full disclosure: Cabot China & Emerging Markets Report has Baidu (BIDU), often referred to as the Google of China, as one of its holdings. BIDU made double-digit percentage gains as investors considered the possibility that Google, a major rival, might pull out of China.]

Simple position #1: For many in the West, Google represents openness, unfettered access to information, entertainment and community.  They see China’s Internet censorship as oppressive, self-serving and hypocritical.

I would say that these people need a little perspective.  The events in the U.S. in the 1950s are a good example of the extremes to which a ruling class can go when it feels threatened by political dissent.  Plus, there are plenty of people in the U.S. today who would be quite happy to purge the Internet of all kinds of pornography, hate speech and other content.  Just because China’s rulers have the will, the skill and the resources to actually do the job doesn’t make them uniquely evil.

Simple position #2: For many supporters of China, this incident is seen in nationalistic terms.  Baidu, they say, has already kicked Google around the block in head-to-head competition and Google is using this excuse to slink out of China with its tail between its legs.  The defeat of Google is emblematic of the superiority of China, and people in the West had better get used to it.  As for the censorship, well, “My country, right or wrong!”

I would say that people holding this position also need some perspective.  A national policy that puts a government in the position of denying information to its citizens is in very bad historical company.  (Even making a list of the most control-minded nations in history would be inflammatory, so I won’t do it.  But state control of information has always been a dead end, and most such states are now part of infamous history.  You can make the list yourself.)

I’m in the position of just wanting to help the subscribers to the Cabot China & Emerging Markets Report make money.  Finger pointing and name-calling won’t help me do that.  But I’ve got to say that I’m with Google on this one.