I.
William P Evens
ACSG 575
Essay #1 - Analyzing Google’s censorship in China
II.
Introduction
In 2006 the Google Corporation reached an agreement with the Chinese government to
allow the company better access to the nation’s Internet market. Google’s core business
unit, the Internet search engine, will be required to censor key terms and events deemed
objectionable by the Chinese government in return for this access. Although Google has
made agreements in the past to censor certain topics for other nations this agreement was
criticized for the company’s willingness to collaborate with the Chinese government.
This paper attempts to raise the core ethical issues involved in the China-Google
agreement with help from the tools and logical arguments provided by three major ethical
theories; Utilitarianism, Deontological, and Virtue Ethics.
III.
Stakeholders
Google’s agreement to censor Internet search results in China creates several
stakeholders with a vested interest, three groups in particular standing out as primary
stakeholders. The Chinese government, the Chinese people, and the Google Corporation
have the most at stake as Google expands further into the Chinese Internet market. The
Google Corporation has an opportunity to grow its client base, further increase its profits,
and strengthen its international brand name. This endeavor will also come with some
risk. By agreeing to the Chinese government’s censorship requirements Google
potentially hurts its brand image which may lead to a loss in market share and
advertisement revenue in other nations. Considering that Google is the world’s largest
search engine, Google will potentially provide cover for competing Internet search engine
and other web-based corporations to censor their services when dealing with foreign
governments. This is significant since Google is one of the few global corporations that
could potentially persuade a nation such as China on governmental controls over Internet
access.
The Chinese government essentially scored a win-win. By allowing Google’s technology
into their nation China continues to benefits from international trade without being
obligated to embrace western-societies preference for free-speech. China’s main risk in
this agreement is the potential for an internal outcry from its citizens demanding an
uncensored service or pressure from other nations (mainly the United States) to embrace
the value of freedom to information.
The Chinese people also benefit from this agreement as they will have better access to
Google’s technology however the Internet service will be highly monitored and
controlled. The Chinese public will be able to utilize the majority of the Google services
however not receive the full experience such as Gmail & Blogging.
Additional stakeholders in the China-Google agreement include the Google stockholders,
corporations looking to advertise on Google, competing Internet search engine
corporations, and minority/outcast groups in disagreement with the Chinese
government’s policies. Stockholders in Google may see Google’s expansion into China
as a double edge sword. On one hand the potential to increase profits in a nation that has
over a billion people is enticing, but the terms of the Chinese agreement may come with a
backlash in other markets where censorship of information is frowned upon. Most
western-societies view open access to information with limited government interference
as an important value. Google’s actions may be viewed as greedy and neglecting these
values when it agreed to China’s terms. The stockholders may end up suffering through a
tarnished corporate image and ultimately a lower stock price.
The China-Google agreement also affects groups already suppressed and easily
overlooked, the minority interests and outcasts of the Chinese government. These groups
vary on beliefs and message however the Google agreement will reinforce China’s desire
to censor speech on topics it feels necessary. This agreement will further minimize the
influence of anti-government voices.
Google’s agreement to honor China’s censorship requirements involves an issue greater
than a contract between a company and nation. This agreement involves a potential
conflict of ethics. Should a person or company conform to the traditions and laws of a
community when these traditions conflict with their own values? The Google
Corporation decided in 2006 that a company should and at the moment it appears that
most stakeholders are benefitting.
IV.
Technology Issues
These stakeholders are affected by Google’s agreement because of the incredible success
and demand for online services that was created out of the Information Technology Age.
The rise of information technology has created new methods of learning and
communicating but has also introduced new means and situations for ethical conflicts.
Censorship and government controlled speech is nothing new in China. For years China
has been able to control the nation’s media outlets and printed material. Recent
technology advancements has introduced new outlets for news, literature, and
communications for the Chinese people but has also created new methods for government
officials to block and monitor these activities.
The use of computer systems are unique from past experiences because this technology
can not only censor online content deemed objectionable but can suppress banned
material in real time. Open debate and public approval can now be more easily
sidestepped as blocking key words and terms become a process of just a few clicks on a
government officer’s keyboard. Unlike restricting a news agency or publisher, the
Chinese government can implement restrictions on the information available through
Google without much notice from critics. Requesting news anchors and publishers to
avoid key topics and historical events may create some resistance and clever reporting,
but implementing censorship to an online service such as Google can be carried out
without question.
V.
Moral Issues
The China-Google agreement also raises several moral and ethical questions. Should a
company conform to the values and traditions of another community? Does the Google
Corporation have an obligation to honor the values of the community it calls home
regardless of where it is conducting business? Is it ethically wrong to impose reasonable
restrictions on access to information?
Google is headquartered in a country that believes freedom to information is an important
value but this is clearly not the view of the Chinese, or at least not their laws. As Google
expands internationally it needs to make several moral decisions. In this case the Google
Corporation has decided that it has a responsibility to adapt to the local laws and values
in China rather than uphold its own. Google determined that altering their business
processes was necessary for their business to grow globally.
VI.
Utilitarian Analysis
A utilitarian analysis of the China-Google agreement would require a consequential
stakeholder costs and benefits breakdown. Several stakeholders in this agreement would
see immediate benefits. The Google Corporation would benefit by expanding their
services into China which in turn would increase revenue and market dominance. This
agreement however may cost Google in the long run because of its willingness to
cooperate with the Chinese government’s censorship requirements. Google may lose
customers in other markets where cooperating with China’s terms may be viewed as
unethical and based on greed. This could ultimately lead to a loss in market share and
declining revenue.
The Chinese Government only benefits in this agreement. Their control over the public’s
access to information is undisturbed while at least appearing to support capitalism and
free trade as they allow a global corporation into its Internet market. The Chinese
Government can support this agreement confidently as it will provide cutting edge
technology to its people while still honoring the nation’s traditions and laws.
The Chinese people will also benefit from this agreement. They will obtain similar
access to information on the Internet as citizens from other leading technology nations.
Even with the censorship limitations, having access to the world’s most successful
Internet search engine will turn out to be a great research tool for the Chinese people. A
utilitarian would likely view the Chinese people in favor of this agreement. The cost to
the Chinese people in terms of denied access to objectionable topics by the government
would not overcome the agreement’s benefits. The amount of stakeholder benefits over
any potential cost would lead a utilitarian to conclude that Google and the Chinese
government signed an ethical agreement.
VII.
Deontological Analysis
A deontological view on the other hand would not be concerned with the consequence of
the China-Google agreement but the outcome of the categorical imperative and Google’s
duty to the Chinese government and people. Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative
states that a reasonable person is to act morally by treating people as ends and never only
as means to an end. To determinate if Google’s actions are ethical we need to explore
Google motives. Google appears to be altering their service features to fit the norms of
the local community. Although these changes appear to be a disservice to the Chinese
people when using a United States or western-society view of censorship, this agreement
basically confirms Google’s commitment to conform to the values and traditions of the
Chinese Government and its people. Applying the categorical imperative on this
agreement would require it to be morally acceptable to enter into an agreement with any
community where your product or services must be altered to meet the acceptable laws
and local norms of that community. A deontological theorist would confidently find this
agreement to pass the categorical imperative and therefore be ethical.
A deontological analysis would also require a review of Google’s duty to the Chinese
Government and people. Kant believed that to act morally you must act from duty
rather than the expected outcome of a circumstance. The Google Corporation has a
responsibility and duty to enter the Chinese market by honoring the local customs and
laws. These norms or laws exist not just to protect the Chinese Government but also its
people. Google has an obligation to conform to the communities that it wants to service.
This agreement only confirms Google’s commitment to honor the traditional values and
laws of the Chinese people. A deontological review of this agreement concludes
Google’s actions to be ethical.
VIII.
Virtue Analysis
A virtue analysis of the China-Google agreement would not be focused on the
agreement’s consequence or even Google’s motives to enter China. Virtue ethics would
primarily focus on the character of the agent, in this case the Google Corporation. In
addition to this agreement Google’s virtue can be determined by past tendencies. Plato
and Aristotle would argue that evaluating the morality of the agent, in this case the
Google Corporation is the primary focus when determining whether or not it possesses
the ideal character traits. To determine Google’s character a review of past actions and
tendencies toward virtues and vices need to be reviewed. The Google Corporation has
introduced several new online services and expanded to numerous nations. Historically,
Google has encountered criticism for some of their products as they relate to privacy and
copyright laws. Google’s Maps with Street View service has been met with criticism for
neglect to personal privacy and recording property without consent. Other Google
services have also been perceived as potentially unethical as one of their products,
Google Books, records sections of copyrighted material without the consent of the
publishers. Google’s character has also come under scrutiny when they admitted to
scanning emails in their Gmail product to target advertisement.
Although one can argue that Google’s services potentially bring some form of wisdom to
their consumers their past business practices appear to be motivated by vices that include
profit and greed rather than prudence, justice, and courage. These past actions have
tarnished Google’s character enough to be deemed without virtue. A virtue analysis of
the Google Corporation would find the company lacking in ideal character traits and
therefore not acting ethically.
IX.
Conclusion
Google’s agreement with the Chinese Government is ethically sound. Although the
utilitarian and deontological ethical tools both conclude this, the argument is best
illustrated by the deontological analysis. The Google Corporation clearly honors its duty
to the Chinese government and people. Google is not using the Chinese people but
conforming its products and services for the Chinese people. In terms of the categorical
imperative, the primary principle in Google’s actions can be successfully and logically
reapplied to future agreements. The utilitarian view also concludes Google’s actions to
be ethical however it requires units of the benefits and costs to individual stakeholders
that are difficult to quantify.
The virtue analysis of the China-Google agreement resulted with Google acting
unethically. Unfortunately the methods used by virtue ethics to determine ethical merit
do not directly deal with the issue on hand. The Google Corporation may have been
unethical in their previous business practices but the motives and possible outcome from
this agreement should be the primary focus on its ethical worth. Each action and
agreement Google enters into is likely to be unique in terms of its ethical merit. The
possibility for some of these actions to be moral while others lack moral worth must
exist.