Google’s decision to censor search
results in China on behalf of the authorities has left the company
vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy and spurning human rights
What’s all this about Google in China?
The company has set up Google.cn, a China-based service of its
internet search tool that will censor results. Critics claim that
Google is thereby acquiescing in restricting freedom of information.
Can’t the Chinese just tap into Google.com?
They can, and have for years – both services are in Mandarin.
But getting into Google.com in China is more than seven times slower
than accessing Baidu,
the leading Chinese search engine. No one likes to wait. As a result, Google has been losing market share.
So Google is offering a new service that is faster, but doesn’t return as many results?
The issue goes deeper than that. A search on Google.com in China
takes so long because the government sifts the results to filter out
material it considers to be ‘harming the honour or interests of the
nation’ or ‘spreading rumours, disturbing social order or disrupting
social stability’.
Who will act as censor?
Google.cn will do the filtering. Chris Smith, Republican
chairman of the US House of Representatives subcommittee on global
human rights, says this makes it hard not to conclude that Google has
‘become evil’s accomplice’.
Shakespeare?
No, Google’s corporate mantra, ‘Don’t be Evil’, which ‘reminds
us to consider the moral and ethical implications of every single
business decision we make’, according to Elliott Schrage, Google’s vice
president for global communications and public affairs.
So Google has done a volte-face?
Before, the company said: ‘Google does not censor results for
any search term … We believe strongly in allowing the democracy of
the web to determine … our search results.’ Now, the results page of
Google.cn states, in Mandarin: ‘These results have been censored
according to laws of the country.’
That seems pretty damning
It does. But testifying before the subcommittee last month,
Schrage mounted a spirited defence. Google’s ‘access problems can only
be solved by creating a local presence inside China’, he declared, and
the Chinese-language Google.com ‘will remain open, unfiltered and
available to all internet users worldwide’. This ‘calibrated approach’
satisfied the interests of users, expanded access to information and
was responsive to local conditions. ‘For Google web search, we estimate
that fewer than two per cent of all search queries in China would
result in pages from which search results would be unavailable due to
filtering,’ he claimed. To avoid personal user data falling into the
authorities’ hands, the company had no plans to host Gmail, Blogger and
other such services in China, Schrage added.
What about other non-Chinese companies?
They’re all in the same boat. Cisco Systems, Microsoft and
Yahoo! were also called to defend themselves against charges of falling
in with Chinese internet censorship. Yahoo! has agreed to screen the
results on the Chinese version of its search engine in accordance with
a government blacklist. Michael Callahan, senior vice president and
general counsel for Yahoo!, told the hearing: ‘Ultimately, US companies
in China face a choice: comply with Chinese law, or leave.’ The Yahoo!
China search service is used by 87 per cent of the 110 million online
population in China, a rise of 1600 per cent in three years. Google had
to respond.
Another case of CSR credentials coming unstuck when commercial reality bites?
Google’s action drew flak because it presented itself as a
champion of the free flow of information. It is seen as having been
naïve in managing reputation – a serious failing for a company whose
customers can switch to a competitor at the click of a mouse.
Ironically, the brouhaha is likely to hurt its business more in developed countries than in China.
Is there no code of conduct?
Simple guidelines on data collection, transparency and
encryption could give companies significant reputational protection,
says the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Google is looking at that.
Governments could help by raising the issue in trade talks: the US
‘should treat censorship as a barrier to trade’, Schrage suggests.
What do investors think?
Socially responsible investors published A Joint Investor
Statement on Freedom of Expression and the Internet last November,
which was signed by 31 fund managers of assets worth $22billion
(£12bn). Everybody has become more sensitized to previously unregarded
reputational risks.
