4 ms·

This is something I never understood. Google has this "do no evil" value and because staying in China involved compromising this value they left. The result is

This is something I never understood. Google has this "do no evil" value and because staying in China involved compromising this value they left. The result is that the Chinese people are short one search engine as well as _any_ good that Google could have done. This seems ultimately more evil to me. It's good for Google because they can say they upheld their values, and it's good for the Chinese government because now they have one less external factor to manage in their control of information. Perhaps there is more to this picture than I am seeing but that has always been my view. There's an ancient Chinese story where a farmer criticizes an official who exiled himself because the government is corrupt. As the fisherman departs he sings: "when the water of the river is clean I wash my hat in the river, when the waters are dirty I wash my feet in the river". What good can the virtuous official do living out in the mountains? Instead you should adapt your participation to the conditions of the playing field.

CountSessine 9y ago
It's good for Google because they can say they upheld their values, and it's good for the Chinese government because now they have one less external factor to manage in their control of information. Perhaps there is more to this picture than I am seeing but that has always been my view I don't see how they could have stayed in China and not been involved in things that are truly evil. When the government phones you up and tells you to hide search results related to babies dying from diluted baby formula (yes, this happened), could you in good conscience tell one of your engineers to add that filter? How could a company like Google possibly retain good people when they have to ask them to do the bidding of such an evil government?
- jhedwards 9y ago
  Yes I agree, this is an angle that actually came to my mind after posting my original comment. At the end of the day there had to be Google engineers in China doing the job, real people actually implementing censorship. So if Google being in China meant that employees had to be involved in inhumane acts, I'm not surprised they would leave.
Infinitesimus 9y ago
It's always about what one considers valuable. The Chinese government will block Google if Google didn't give them access and censorship. Google could spend eternity fighting this until the government changes (ha), or pull our and upload their value of organizing the world's information without* censorship. In your eyes, they are more evil for not bringing their products to China, in their eyes, they are more noble for making their anti-censorship* stance loud and clear. Apple in this case can be viewed as doing good (assuming having an iPhone and access to Apple's stuff is good for people) or as putting money over censorship values. It's all about which angle to look from. The world isn't hurting for search engines, mail providers or luxury smartphones. Maybe Google decided that fighting the Chinese government is not the right battle and allowing direct censorship is not a value they are willing to compromise on even if it means losing access to several millions of users *Yeah, filter bubbles exist and Google controlling search results and ads can be viewed as evil but that's a different conversation.
mturmon 9y ago
You have articulated the conundrum of all "social justice" boycotts. I first encountered these arguments in the 1980s when universities and big corps were deciding how to engage with the apartheid regime in South Africa. The specifics are different, but the issues are the same. (I'm NOT equating the two cases. ) Here's some factors that could be a guide: What do the citizens themselves want? Is the boycott merely symbolic, or is it linked to other boycotts and pressure across a wide front, so that it is liable to have the desired outcome? Are the boycotters committed to long term pressure, publicity, and engagement with stakeholders in the other country?
klibertp 9y ago
> The result is that the Chinese people are short one search engine as well as _any_ good that Google could have done. One question: do they - Chinese people - even care? It's not exactly "good" - whatever Google could have done in such an environment - if you try to force it on an unwilling crowd.
KMag 9y ago
> Google has this "do no evil" value Former Google engineer here. There's a subtle but significant semantic difference between "Don't be evil" (the real motto) and "Do no evil" (a confusion between the Hippocratic oath and the Google motto).
- halter73 9y ago
  Can you explain the semantic difference between being and doing in this context? What I'm mostly interested in is how you can rationalize doing evil while not considering yourself as being evil. Is it based on the idea that you might do evil unintentionally or that you could be coerced into it? Are there other reasons for the distinction?
  - KMag 9y ago
    If Google has determined that censorship is evil, but an open society is a noble goal, then "Do no evil" would prevent Google from collaborating with censors under any circumstances. "Don't be evil" would allow collaborating with censors if Google believed that collaborating with censors was the fastest way to inducing a closed society to open up (or some other greater good).
  - eridius 9y ago
    Other reasons are because people are really good at rationalization and at cognitive dissonance. Google does plenty of borderline-evil stuff, but as long as they can shrug their shoulders and say "well, it's not like we're evil, just some of the stuff we do is" then apparently it's ok.
  - Hasknewbie 9y ago
    Not Google-specific, but: Do no evil = "No, we are not going to torture these prisoners of war, period." Don't be evil = "It's OK to waterboard them a little if they deserve it. Remember, we are the good guys, we're here to help." (See also: rationale for the My Lai Massacre. Very similar thinking, it's possible to excuse awful things when you're the hero(es) of your own (indoctrinated) narrative.)
- deleted 9y ago

CountSessine 9y ago

It's good for Google because they can say they upheld their values, and it's good for the Chinese government because now they have one less external factor to manage in their control of information. Perhaps there is more to this picture than I am seeing but that has always been my view I don't see how they could have stayed in China and not been involved in things that are truly evil. When the government phones you up and tells you to hide search results related to babies dying from diluted baby formula (yes, this happened), could you in good conscience tell one of your engineers to add that filter? How could a company like Google possibly retain good people when they have to ask them to do the bidding of such an evil government?

jhedwards 9y ago
Yes I agree, this is an angle that actually came to my mind after posting my original comment. At the end of the day there had to be Google engineers in China doing the job, real people actually implementing censorship. So if Google being in China meant that employees had to be involved in inhumane acts, I'm not surprised they would leave.

Infinitesimus 9y ago

It's always about what one considers valuable. The Chinese government will block Google if Google didn't give them access and censorship. Google could spend eternity fighting this until the government changes (ha), or pull our and upload their value of organizing the world's information without* censorship. In your eyes, they are more evil for not bringing their products to China, in their eyes, they are more noble for making their anti-censorship* stance loud and clear. Apple in this case can be viewed as doing good (assuming having an iPhone and access to Apple's stuff is good for people) or as putting money over censorship values. It's all about which angle to look from. The world isn't hurting for search engines, mail providers or luxury smartphones. Maybe Google decided that fighting the Chinese government is not the right battle and allowing direct censorship is not a value they are willing to compromise on even if it means losing access to several millions of users *Yeah, filter bubbles exist and Google controlling search results and ads can be viewed as evil but that's a different conversation.

mturmon 9y ago

You have articulated the conundrum of all "social justice" boycotts. I first encountered these arguments in the 1980s when universities and big corps were deciding how to engage with the apartheid regime in South Africa. The specifics are different, but the issues are the same. (I'm NOT equating the two cases. ) Here's some factors that could be a guide: What do the citizens themselves want? Is the boycott merely symbolic, or is it linked to other boycotts and pressure across a wide front, so that it is liable to have the desired outcome? Are the boycotters committed to long term pressure, publicity, and engagement with stakeholders in the other country?

klibertp 9y ago

> The result is that the Chinese people are short one search engine as well as _any_ good that Google could have done. One question: do they - Chinese people - even care? It's not exactly "good" - whatever Google could have done in such an environment - if you try to force it on an unwilling crowd.

KMag 9y ago

> Google has this "do no evil" value Former Google engineer here. There's a subtle but significant semantic difference between "Don't be evil" (the real motto) and "Do no evil" (a confusion between the Hippocratic oath and the Google motto).

halter73 9y ago
Can you explain the semantic difference between being and doing in this context? What I'm mostly interested in is how you can rationalize doing evil while not considering yourself as being evil. Is it based on the idea that you might do evil unintentionally or that you could be coerced into it? Are there other reasons for the distinction?
- KMag 9y ago
  If Google has determined that censorship is evil, but an open society is a noble goal, then "Do no evil" would prevent Google from collaborating with censors under any circumstances. "Don't be evil" would allow collaborating with censors if Google believed that collaborating with censors was the fastest way to inducing a closed society to open up (or some other greater good).
- eridius 9y ago
  Other reasons are because people are really good at rationalization and at cognitive dissonance. Google does plenty of borderline-evil stuff, but as long as they can shrug their shoulders and say "well, it's not like we're evil, just some of the stuff we do is" then apparently it's ok.
- Hasknewbie 9y ago
  Not Google-specific, but: Do no evil = "No, we are not going to torture these prisoners of war, period." Don't be evil = "It's OK to waterboard them a little if they deserve it. Remember, we are the good guys, we're here to help." (See also: rationale for the My Lai Massacre. Very similar thinking, it's possible to excuse awful things when you're the hero(es) of your own (indoctrinated) narrative.)
deleted 9y ago