4 ms·

I don't see how Google can afford not to do this. I thought the same when they pulled out of China over censorship years ago. Morally, of course its wrong, but

I don't see how Google can afford not to do this. I thought the same when they pulled out of China over censorship years ago. Morally, of course its wrong, but what's the alternative over the long term? They would cede the market to a more accomodating competitor (e.g. Baidu), who would then have a strategic advantage. Google's potential market share is (world - China - whichever other country wants to censor them) Google is big. It's not invincible.

zepto 8y ago
A strategic advantage in what way? Unless you assume that Baidu can surplant google in markets other than China. Perhaps that is so, but you need to explain how, given Google’s massive lead everywhere else.
- headmelted 8y ago
  I doubt very much it'll be Baidu, and maybe what supplants Google doesn't exist yet. Maybe it doesn't happen at all. I just think that with China drawing towards being almost 20% of the population of the entire planet, the government there wields a lot more power globally than they are credited with. A 20% smaller market is a serious disadvantage in the future, and I imagine Google have known this for some time. I think we were all hoping their withdrawal would contribute to an eventual change of the censorship policy, but that hasn't happened, and by all accounts looks less likely now.
  - zepto 8y ago
    A 20% smaller market is only 20% smaller if some entity from China can command more in total. There is no evidence that this Chinese tech companies can operate successfully at Google’s scale without running into their own international barriers.
zzzcpan 8y ago
> but what's the alternative over the long term? Fight censorship, really fight it, and enter all those markets with uncensorable peer-to-peer tech all the way, even replacing money.
- headmelted 8y ago
  This I agree with, but it's not going to come from any company. They have a legal responsibility to put their shareholders first, not their users.
skybrian 8y ago
The alternative is to still be a huge and very profitable company outside China. Really, they'll be fine. Where does this idea come from that no matter how big and secure you are, it's not enough? Do people just like drama?
- CommieBobDole 8y ago
  They're a publicly-traded corporation. If they don't grow by a certain amount every quarter, their stock will drop. Also, if there's a market they could get into and they choose not to, they could be sued by their shareholders.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    I know "everything is securities fraud" is one of Matt Levine's memes, but it's my understanding this is not actually grounds for a lawsuit? The company has to have misled investors in some way. (Not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.)
Analemma_ 8y ago
> I don't see how Google can afford not to do this. They're not doing it right now and seem to be affording it just fine: at their most recent earnings call, revenue was up 23% YoY to hit $110 billion annually, EPS was up 32%, and share price was up about 25%. There's no excuse for this other than the capitalist dictum that more income must be pursued at any cost. Baidu is not a global competitor to Google, at all. Their English-language results are a joke; not even close to being as good as Bing's, never mind Google's.
- headmelted 8y ago
  I understand this. Maybe it'll be Bing. Maybe Amazon Search in 2025. My point is that by forgoing any amount of market Google is effectively allowing a competitor to ultimately have whatever their own growth potential is, plus 20%. Its not about whether they need the money, which clearly they don't, it's whether by leaving it on the table (for reasons I agree with) they risk allowing themselves to be supplanted by someone else who isn't even pretending to "not be evil". The other equally cynical argument I would make is, they're a public company, they have to make the numbers keep going up. I don't like being the d-word saying this.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Morally, of course its wrong, but what's the alternative over the long term?" To not do it. Google has plenty of fucking money; they don't need all the money. "They would cede the market to a more accommodating competitor (e.g. Baidu), who would then have a strategic advantage." In China. There are plenty of other people in the world, and most of those people do not want a search engine where the results are chosen by a totalitarian government. This idea that Google "has to" do this, and that there can be only one winner of anything, ever, is terrible, and I believe is directly responsible for most of the ills of our day.
- headmelted 8y ago
  While I agree with you in principle, turn the theory on its head. If Google (and Bing, just as an example of a less popular rival) were principled enough to say "you know what? No. We're not censoring." (as has been Google's policy until now) would Western governments meet them halfway and take a stand against rivals that were doing it elsewhere? I believe that's what it would take to level the playing field (and I admit I could be naive here), but the suggestion itself is preposterous. No western government is ever going to place what would amount to an embargo on a search engine over them censoring results in another country. I hear what people are saying about user's will vote with their feet (or hands as it were), and that Google is safe with their already dominant position, but I don't think history supports that view. I also don't think the average user cares that much if someone else is getting censored thousands of miles away. Maybe I'm cynical, but people at large just don't care about this stuff, and I say this as someone who cares deeply about it. (How many people outside of tech remember Edward Snowden? I'm sure they'll recall the name but I'd be surprised if you'd hear more than "was that the Russian spy guy?") I really hope Google won't submit to censoring in China, I just think it's likely they will. And it sucks. And it sucks more that I believe it'll happen.

zepto 8y ago

A strategic advantage in what way? Unless you assume that Baidu can surplant google in markets other than China. Perhaps that is so, but you need to explain how, given Google’s massive lead everywhere else.

headmelted 8y ago
I doubt very much it'll be Baidu, and maybe what supplants Google doesn't exist yet. Maybe it doesn't happen at all. I just think that with China drawing towards being almost 20% of the population of the entire planet, the government there wields a lot more power globally than they are credited with. A 20% smaller market is a serious disadvantage in the future, and I imagine Google have known this for some time. I think we were all hoping their withdrawal would contribute to an eventual change of the censorship policy, but that hasn't happened, and by all accounts looks less likely now.
- zepto 8y ago
  A 20% smaller market is only 20% smaller if some entity from China can command more in total. There is no evidence that this Chinese tech companies can operate successfully at Google’s scale without running into their own international barriers.

zzzcpan 8y ago

> but what's the alternative over the long term? Fight censorship, really fight it, and enter all those markets with uncensorable peer-to-peer tech all the way, even replacing money.

headmelted 8y ago
This I agree with, but it's not going to come from any company. They have a legal responsibility to put their shareholders first, not their users.

skybrian 8y ago

The alternative is to still be a huge and very profitable company outside China. Really, they'll be fine. Where does this idea come from that no matter how big and secure you are, it's not enough? Do people just like drama?

CommieBobDole 8y ago
They're a publicly-traded corporation. If they don't grow by a certain amount every quarter, their stock will drop. Also, if there's a market they could get into and they choose not to, they could be sued by their shareholders.
- skybrian 8y ago
  I know "everything is securities fraud" is one of Matt Levine's memes, but it's my understanding this is not actually grounds for a lawsuit? The company has to have misled investors in some way. (Not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.)

Analemma_ 8y ago

> I don't see how Google can afford not to do this. They're not doing it right now and seem to be affording it just fine: at their most recent earnings call, revenue was up 23% YoY to hit $110 billion annually, EPS was up 32%, and share price was up about 25%. There's no excuse for this other than the capitalist dictum that more income must be pursued at any cost. Baidu is not a global competitor to Google, at all. Their English-language results are a joke; not even close to being as good as Bing's, never mind Google's.

headmelted 8y ago
I understand this. Maybe it'll be Bing. Maybe Amazon Search in 2025. My point is that by forgoing any amount of market Google is effectively allowing a competitor to ultimately have whatever their own growth potential is, plus 20%. Its not about whether they need the money, which clearly they don't, it's whether by leaving it on the table (for reasons I agree with) they risk allowing themselves to be supplanted by someone else who isn't even pretending to "not be evil". The other equally cynical argument I would make is, they're a public company, they have to make the numbers keep going up. I don't like being the d-word saying this.

s73v3r_ 8y ago

"Morally, of course its wrong, but what's the alternative over the long term?" To not do it. Google has plenty of fucking money; they don't need all the money. "They would cede the market to a more accommodating competitor (e.g. Baidu), who would then have a strategic advantage." In China. There are plenty of other people in the world, and most of those people do not want a search engine where the results are chosen by a totalitarian government. This idea that Google "has to" do this, and that there can be only one winner of anything, ever, is terrible, and I believe is directly responsible for most of the ills of our day.

headmelted 8y ago
While I agree with you in principle, turn the theory on its head. If Google (and Bing, just as an example of a less popular rival) were principled enough to say "you know what? No. We're not censoring." (as has been Google's policy until now) would Western governments meet them halfway and take a stand against rivals that were doing it elsewhere? I believe that's what it would take to level the playing field (and I admit I could be naive here), but the suggestion itself is preposterous. No western government is ever going to place what would amount to an embargo on a search engine over them censoring results in another country. I hear what people are saying about user's will vote with their feet (or hands as it were), and that Google is safe with their already dominant position, but I don't think history supports that view. I also don't think the average user cares that much if someone else is getting censored thousands of miles away. Maybe I'm cynical, but people at large just don't care about this stuff, and I say this as someone who cares deeply about it. (How many people outside of tech remember Edward Snowden? I'm sure they'll recall the name but I'd be surprised if you'd hear more than "was that the Russian spy guy?") I really hope Google won't submit to censoring in China, I just think it's likely they will. And it sucks. And it sucks more that I believe it'll happen.