We Are All Like Google In China

Since January, a fascinating showdown between one of the world's most important companies and the world's most powerful emerging country has had the heads of tech journalists, entrepreneurs and human rights activists -- not to mention Chinese internet users -- spinning. As this saga unfolds, if there is one lesson we can take, it's that public acts of morality are more complicated than public declarations.

The most recent chapter of the Google-China saga began this year, when Google took the unusual step of writing a public blog post about a recent spate of cyber attacks that specifically targeted the Google mail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Although the post didn't say so explicitly, it suggested that the Chinese government was supporting (or at least had knowledge of) the attacks. Google's conclusion? They decided to "review [their] business operations in China," with the goal of determining whether they still wanted to participate in a system that not only censored search results, but also permitted a larger -- and possibly more pernicious -- program of government control.

The post ignited waves of interest. The tech journalism community weighed in -- some were incredibly excited, others labeled it a cynical ploy, more about money than about rights. Chinese internet users were left wondering what it meant for them, and worried about whether it would diminish their access to important information.

Earlier this week, Google announced how they would proceed. Shutting down Google.cn, they would instead redirect all traffic from the Chinese mainland to Google's Hong Kong site. According to a conversation the New York Times had with Google co-founder Sergey Brin, earlier discussions with China's government suggested this would be an acceptable approach for the Chinese. When actually announced, however, the government came out swinging, lambasting Google for reneging on business commitments and politicizing what they saw as an internal matter.

Google, for their part, has also taken a decidedly more vocal and political turn in their conversations about China's internet censorship policy. In an interview with the Guardian, Brin urged the Obama administration to make human rights a priority as important as trade issues in their relationships with governments like China's.

What's more, Brin in particular has taken a more vocal stance about where a company's priorities should lie. Suprised by the vigor and anger of the response from free-marketers after the announcement, Brin said that companies should limit what they do to maximize profit. "The notion that any company should make any sort of decision other than to maximise profit? I would hope that larger companies would not put profit ahead of all else," he said. "Generally, companies should pay attention to how and where their products are used."

What do I make of all of this?

1. It's never to late to do the right thing. Brin has more or less admitted that going into China in 2006 was the wrong thing to do, because it meant supporting censorship. The fact that they've pulled out now for reasons of principle should be celebrated in the battle for internet freedom. I think the argument that Google pulled out because their business just wasn't going that well is preposterous. If only from a resources perspective, they clearly had the ability to stay in the world's biggest emerging market for the long haul.

2. The "right thing" is almost always less clear than it seems. What shoes are you wearing right now? What about clothes? Were they made in less-than-dignified labor conditions? What about the computer you're reading this article on? A key mineral in laptop production is coltan, 80% of which is found in the Congo, and proceeds from which are thought to be a major fuel for the ongoing conflict there. What about your salary? Do you donate as much to charity as you could?

The point of all these questions is to not cast blame. It's to remind us that by our very existence in the global economic system, we participate in -- and implicitly condone -- activities, conditions and inequalities that, were they presented to us in their barest form, we might label as wrong, unjust and unacceptable. The essence of day-to-day social engagement is fundamentally about deciding where we do and don't draw those lines.

Those are the sort of circumstances companies face as well. On the one hand, there are questions of ethics and mission. On the other hand, there's profit potential, and the pressure from investors for better returns. And to top it all off, with a company like Google, there is the very real social good that comes from opening up access to new information -- even if that access is imperfect.

The Google-China stand-off marks both one of the most complicated and important moments in global business in the 21st century. With China's ascendance as a global power, it's also a conversation that is going to become more, and not less, important.

Photo Credit: 大杨