For those of you who do know know the significance of the phrase, "Don't be evil" is the informal motto of Google, probably the most talked about company of the last couple of years. Over the past couple of weeks I have seen more articles than I care to recount on how American search companies (including Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft) are dealing with China and how they caved in to the pressure exerted by the Communist Party (no, not the Democrat party of the U. S., the Communist party that controls mainland China). If you really, truly don't know what I am talking about, here are a couple of articles, two condemning their actions from the International Herald Tribue and Reporters Without Borders (yeah, I'm referencing them, don't have a stroke), and one that is a bit more mixed from InformationWeek. Now I think there may be some merit in the arguments of the big companies that they are "bringing the Internet" to China and that it is practically impossible to actually block everything. So be it. But let's be honest, if in the pursuit of profit they are willing to compromise here then what else will they compromise on? As Google is market's "flavor of the moment" they will be the main topic of discussion, but in all honesty they bring it upon themselves. You see, for all the supposed depth that the Googlites think exists in saying they are guided by "Don't be evil", I am shocked that these supposedly smart people would allow themselves to be guided by such fuzzy thinking. Google has claimed that they are simply making themselves be in compliance with a foreign government. I hope they do not really think that legal = good (or moral). In fact, if you look at their activities in other areas, this appears not to be the case those this is their main argument with respect to the China issue. When examined from a philosophical point of view they are terribly all over the map... which I suppose reflects a solid indoctrination in elitist moral relativism (and in reading up on my subjects under current discussion, that appears to be an accurate assessment of their background). For example, in an article in Wired, Google says that they have a policy of not accepting ads for any person or group is "anti- anything". So if you are a group against the selling of children for sex (that is, "anti" child sex slave trade), Google wouldn't, based on this simple statement of their current moral view, accept an ad from you while there is at least the possibility of them accepting one advertising the Asian child sex trade (after all, if you are advertising it you can take that as a "pro" position)? Of course, the "anti" policy seems to be more a suggestion (or a quip for the press) than a true guide since Google does accept ads for "anti-smoking". The fact that Google accepts advertising for adult content sites is an intriguing commentary on their morality: Cigarettes and booze are evil; porn is not... welcome to contemporary liberal thinking. And lets not forget that while they didn't acquiesce to the federal goverment's request for search information in the name of privacy, they did collaborate with China in the fight AGAINST freedom of access of information.
Contemporary market purists may say that what these companies are doing is simply "the price of doing business". This is why I suppose I am not a proponent of contemporary market theory. I am all for free markets, but I do not buy what has become known as the Nexus of Contracts Theory of the corporation, an outgrowth of economic work lead by Milton Friedman based on the idea of the corporation's sole moral obligation of protecting shareholder profits. I think we let companies get away with far too much just because of market valuations. I'm sorry, but for me "money makes right" has no more argumentative strength than does "might makes right".
No comments:
Post a Comment