True colors

It is profound what being a public company can do to the core values of a young company. It was less than two years ago that Google Inc. co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin thumbed their noses at the U.S. investment banking community with an auction-based IPO and their pledge not to cave in to the short-term demands of Wall Street.

Their mantra was "do no evil," and the company's mission statement still says Google's goal is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful." Even with one of the largest market valuations of any U.S. company, Google (GOOG: news, chart, profile) tries to set itself apart from its rivals -- Yahoo (YHOO: news, chart, profile) , Microsoft's (MSFT: news, chart, profile) MSN and Time Warner's (TWX: news, chart, profile) AOL -- by underscoring its high-minded philosophical goal to "resist the temptation to make small sacrifices to increase shareholder value."

It passionately claims that, "Google has steadfastly refused to make any change that does not offer a benefit to the users who come to the site."

Yet Google's announcement Tuesday that it will comply with China's repressive laws by doctoring its search results in that country makes a mockery of those values.

Google is making a sacrifice, and a big one at that, risking its democratic image for more access in a country that will contribute very little business in the near future. Right move for shareholders? Possibly. Ironic move? Yes. Noble move? Hardly. Maybe China's riches are worth it. I don't think so. But when you've tasted billions -- like Brin and Page -- I guess you can hire a boatload of attorneys to justify any choices you make.

A successful serial entrepreneur friend once said that when starting a business, one has to know whether they're doing it because they want to change the world in a good way, or because they want to make money. It's one or the other, not both. He is right. We often have lofty goals. We often remind ourselves of them, as Google does of its own. But more often than not we fail to achieve them. The world changes us far more than we can change it.

Watch my interview with Kurt Opsahl, an attorney at EFF

Read Net Sense on MarketWatch

Comments

[Eliana]

I think you're spot on. Google was so eager to flaunt its alleged morality that it forgot that it would eventually have to live up to it. No one questioned Microsoft or Yahoo when they created business in China. Why the Google interest? Because this move (and a few others) makes them look like hypocrites in lieu of their "do no evil" policy. Do you think any reporters ever chased Bill Gates around Davos demanding answers to his evident breech in morality? Did Jerry Yang, David Filo, or Terry Semel have to backpedal and eat crow like Sergey Brin had to yesterday (while cutting into his precious skiing time)? No. If they had kept their braggart ways to themselves from the beginning, they would have saved themselves a lot of bullshit later.

Of course, the "do no evil" motto is what separated them from the others. It was a gimmick, and the founders rode it all the way to post-IPO billions. Unfortunately, they've painted themselves into a corner. I'm reminded of what Jeff Bezos said when he was asked about Google's "do no evil" policy: "...You shouldn't have to brag about it."

[John]

Excellent article, but you're too kind to Google. It's not a question of partial information or no information at all. The choice is between information censored by an unelected, life tenured dictatorship (but don't get me started on Judge Alito) versus no information at all. When governments ban books and movies people smuggle them in and pass them to their friends. It's a shame Google, committed to freeing information, should be caught up in hiding it.

[Thomas Pace]

Ms. Francisco,

I disagree with the popular press that this represents a 'caving in ' to the Chinese Government, and that this is in direct conflict with Google's stand with the DOJ. An entry point is just that, and necessary if anything of merit (or something solely for corporate advance) can ever develop.

The subpoena from DOJ opens a can of worms of who may have already searched for whatever, whereas the limitations on Google as dictated by the Chinese Government limit what the Chinese can search for - a distinction that is important by manner of perspective : which is better, a witch hunt or limited access ?

China has been mired in the dark ages by the dictatorial oppression, certainly. Still further, barriers to communication have done even more, as only the written words in Mandarin are the same throughout all the Chinese provinces. The spoken language is different between the many villages, towns, and regional areas, but as the proliferation of computer use grows along it's inevitable path, using the now-standard of written Mandarin, information will emerge through the use of the internet.

I am hopeful that Pandora cannot be kept in a box, certainly not forever. Is Google's foray into China a good thing for Democracy, free speech, and individual _expression right now ? Most probably not much if at all.

What it is and represents, at least to the idealist in me, is a start. A beginning of something that I hope will prove to be undeniable, even from the strong arm of the Chinese Dictatorship, is definitely better than no genesis at all. It can be made a similar argument to civil rights in the USA, gender, age, and religious bias in the workplace, et al : better the opportunity to make significant change in the rules from within than attempt to fix the situation from the outside.

Great articles an opinions - keep 'em coming.

Regards and Aloha,

Tom Pace

[Andrew S]

I wrote up my opinions on this at the URL below. Most of the media is missing the big story, which is that by hiding the truthful results, Google is only showing the goverment lies and propaganda on political search queries. I'm glad that you (unlike most of the rest of the media) were able to make the important point that censored, incomplete search results can be far worse than no search results at all.

http://lart.stanford.edu/~shandrew/google-cn-propaganda.html

[Claude Bogley]

As a share holder and US Citizen I completely agree with Google's approach to opening a market in China. What a brilliant idea to adhere to the legal requirements in the country in which you do business in order to benefit the viability of the enterprise. As long as they do not violate laws from the country where they are legally chartered it would appear to be the sanest approach to making inroads to what will be the worlds largest economy in the near future. Are all the other US Companies in China refusing to obey the laws of the legitimate government of that country. I certainly do not think so. Why isn't the patriotic integrity of these companies being questioned?

I don't believe this is inconsistent with their "mantra" do no evil. Unless you believe that the citizens of the country haven't concluded that the government already censors what they see and hear. I am sure they are not in front of the monitor asking why their Fox News search only shows web sites featuring the small furry figure. Ya think?

I love companies that know how to make a buck. Clearly Google has solved the puzzle. Atleast they didn't outsource it so more US Citizens can be laid off as a result of a more brilliant idea.

[Gary H]

"Is Google doing the right thing..."?

No. And I don't understand the mis-step. They are doing exactly the right thing, on multiple levels, with respect to the US government's demands for information to which _no one_ - not a government, not a police department, NO ONE, is entitled, aggregated or otherwise. (Why has no one made that point?) So I'm really puzzled why Google would apparently turn hypocrite with respect to China.

Some guesses that haven't been expressed in other posts:

Maybe they intend to sort of obey, but not work very hard at it - to give a reasonable appearance that they are obeying, trying to stay in a place where honest experts will disagree about whether Google is purposely being ineffective, or merely isn't being as effective as the Chinese government would ideally prefer. This is probably the Chinese government's expectation anyway; they are politicians, after all.

This need not be "dishonest" on Google's part; it's a matter of degree. It becomes a balancing act between opposing forces. It seems to me that time is on Google's side: as Google's functionality becomes familiar, it eventually becomes infeasible for the Chinese government to threaten expulsion. In fact ultimately Google could gain the upper hand, and threaten to pull out if the limitations aren't lifted.

Another possibility is that Google believes censored results will ultimately retard China's progress, and put them at a disadvantage compared to the rest of the world... and that both the Chinese populace and the rest of the world will make that case more credibly than Google can.

Or maybe they just feel forced by competition: since their competitors (Yahoo et al) have capitulated to the US DOJ, it's reasonable to assume they'd kowtow (no pun intended) to the Chinese government as well, to grab market share. Google has to be there and have their usual high market share before any of the above positive scenarios can play out.

Maybe they just trust the Chinese people to be more inventive than their government can handle at getting around the limitations.

A tactical note: to facilitate their eventually gaining the upper hand, I think it would be a good idea for Google to always tell the user when some search terms or results have been filtered out by "local restrictions".

Regards,
Gary

[Tony Cecala]

I enjoyed your thoughtful piece on Google and China. And, I respectfully disagree.

The ethics of international relations is about doing the "lesser of two evils" (situational triage). In international affairs, one partners with an evil despot to defeat a "more evil" despot. By relenting to the Chinese government, Google gives Chinese citizens the best search results possible—within government regulations. No one on the planet will be able to do this better.

Is this a noble move? I think nobility is overrated. In Hollywood, the heroes confront evil and always win. In the real world, a more practical approach is sometimes necessary. Integrous acts sometimes appear to be evil. Last century, buddying up to Stalin was a situational necessity. When taken in context (ending WWII) we certainly did the right thing.

I don't believe that holding Google to the moral standards of a saint is realistic in the world today. Unfortunately, their "do no evil" motto taunts us to do so.

[Kevin]

Dear Bambi,

First of all, I just wanted to say that I don't usually read financial news (though I do read the Economist) as I'm a terrible investor and don't work in a normal business world (I design museum exhibits). But your column (or whatever it is in today's world!) is always thoughtful, personal, and engaging, while teaching me more about a world developing and affecting all of our lives. So thank you!

Also, I believe you're right: my professor used to say you can do well, or do good. You usually can't do both. Living and working in New York, I realize how much can be made in the world, even in design, but it's worth it to me to do some good in what I do even if I don't do super well (but I don't live an uncomfortable life; I just can't live the extravagant life that some live). I've lost a few jobs, but always feel like there is a point where you have to make a stand, and stick to it (that's a long story!) Not inflexibly (we all learn and grow), but with principles that resonate as true to what we believe we know and understand that moment.

I think you're right in calling them out since they do make a big point of being principled, and yet this action flies in the face of all they say and I believe they are conscious of what this means. Despotism will have its way only when we give it to them out of fear or desire. It's easy for them to take on the U.S. government since the "hurt" isn't so much in fighting it, but as they were staring the big Chinese government in the face and seeing risk in losing their desired market share. Good for you to say it... it isn't all about convenient stands, right?

Thanks again,
Kevin

[Joe Buhler]

I totally agree with your opinion on this subject. Google starts to compromise its lofty, idealistic statements already by kowtowing to the government of China, which let's remember is a totalitarian regime. If they are caving in at this point, when their China revenue is minimal, just imagine what might happen down the road when that business will inevitably grow larger.

One thing we should all remember, China will be the next rival to the U.S. as a superpower, and the time of being the world's only superpower will be rather short lived, especially with China holding the financial bag in the form of U.S. treasuries.

If the past history of U.S. dealings with China is any guide, we should be in for quite a rough time...... Stay tuned!

[David]

Gimme a break. Either you're very ignorant and naive or you think your readers are. Forget China, maybe you should suggest Google to move out of the US for what's going on in Guantanamo Bay and Iraq too.

[JC]

Hi Bambi,

Excellent article on google "Google shows its true colors", very well said, no one could have nailed it down better. These two fellows claimed to want to follow Warren Buffet's footsteps, but they are cashing in their stocks faster than anyone can say hallelujah, printing the stock certificates and cashing them in every chance they have while ordinary folks put their hard earned dollar on Google hoping it is going to some place useful and meaningful. Buffet does not sell his personal stakes in his holdings so he can travel around in a 767 jet. So the next time they say they are emulating Warren Buffet, someone should tell them to shut up!! So money does change people, big time, and I guess that is the reality. But on the bright side, lately I can sense the tide is turning and public opinion is changing after the news of their stock sales was widely known to the public. I don't own Google shares because I will not buy them at these prices for the reasons you eluded to in your article. The irrational exuberance of the dotcom era is still very fresh in my mind.

Secondly, I am Chinese, I grew up in Asia, your clever friend is absolutely right. It will be a very scary development indeed when China becomes a superpower and history is re-written through the eyes of the Chinese government!!

I read many of your articles on MarketWatch and listen to your interviews with the analysts/fund managers from time to time:)

Keep up the good work!!

JC

[Bill]

Regarding your MarketWatch video piece:

Google simply is getting their foot in the Chinese internet market. The underground internet of the newly computer saavy Chinese will continue to find ways around the government censorship. As Joe Kernan, CNBC, said today..."the genie is out of the bottle". Ditto, that....!

China's economy grew at 9% last year. Just imagine their power when communism finally falls just as it did in Eastern Europe years ago under President Reagan.

Imagine the Chinese Government trying at first to sensor the "truth dripping" from you kitchen faucet with their "hand". Now imagine that same sensor trying use his hand to sensor the "truth gushing" from the fire hydrant in front of your house courtesy of Google.

Disclosures: Long Google

[Dave]

Thank you for your excellent article. I, like many of my friends, have forwarded the article or link to all that I know. You hit the mark with your comments and I hope that enough people take notice that Google changes their mind. In Nazi Germany just before WW2, many Jews had a similar decision. The false argument was that if they didn’t boycott the Nazi companies then the Nazis wouldn’t punish them. In the end they lost everything. Google may not have lost everything but they certainly lost the moral high ground, especially with their failure the assist the government in their fight against child access to porn. Additionally, they seem to have lost the concept of personal property rights. They seem to feel that they and they alone can judge who can store and release intellectual property rights. In many ways they remind me of Microsoft before Microsoft was humbled by competition and negative opinions. Hopefully Google’s time is coming.
Thank you again for your excellent article and keep up the good work.

[Bill V]

I so enjoy your informative e-newsletter. This most recent Net Sense was right on. It is sad that Google caved to the Chinese and tripped over their high-minded principles. They had the power to move things (albeit inches) in the right direction and they took the easy road.

Thanks for your keen observations.

[John D]

Hi Bambi,

Your column on Google made some interesting points. However, I feel you left out some important points and pulled the trigger to quick to call Google's move in China "hardly noble." The following are some points worth considering.

First, I don't believe "that Billions typically have a way of getting the best of us" is fair to use to describe co-founders Page and Brin's motivations. They are worth Billions and will probably never worry about money again. So I'm not sure where the motivation is? Also, the fact that each of them drives a Prius, and not some extremely expensive and flashy car, to work might be one indicator of how much they care about changing the world. If I was a shareholder (for the record I have never been and feel that Google's current valuation is overvalued by about 15%), I would want them to position themselves in the largest future economy. I don't see their move as a form of hypocracy (more on that below). We don't know what their motives are and before we do, we should try and examine all the possible reasons. As a company which competes on the most global medium, the internet, it would be foolish not to enter into China. Also, do you really think the Chinese gov't will change their ways if Google doesn't support their political system? Or some other company won't come into China to take Google's spot?

What if Google has another goal in mind that they do not want to disclose (for fear of the Chinese gov't not allowing them in). What if they have a plan of becoming the market leader in the internet seach arena within China then, after gaining this market share, push the Chinese gov't towards free-speech ideals. Once a leader in their business, Google would have a real influence on China and perhaps help them become a move democratic republic.

Second, IMO what Bush is doing with respect to eavesdropping in the US is illegal. We had something in place before Bush started eavesdropping on domestic citizens called Echelon (this allowed eavesdropping once a court order was authorized by the FISA court). I don't see a problem with that old system because it had checks and balances in place to make sure it wasn't being abused. Don't get me wrong, if the US gov't wishes to eavesdrop my phone calls, go ahead. Just make sure there exists a seperate body, such as the FISA court, to make sure the system is neither being abused nor someone doesn't act above the law (such as what Bush is currently doing). We need to fight terriorism, but not at cost of changing our own ideals. If we do that, we have lost our ideals, as well as our identity, and should stop fighting this war because there is already a winner. To get back to Google's story, I appauld them for standing up to the gov't b/c what the gov't is doing is wrong. For them to step into China and allow some censureship of their searches is not an act of hypocracy (depending on how you look at it). My view is that while a free and democratic system maybe the fairest and best system for individuals, it is difficult to impose on a country led by as narrow minded and strict as China's gov't officials are. They (the people of China), not us, are the ones who will ultimately have to make the change away from communism.

I hope this post's tone came across as polite and respectful of everyone's viewpoints.

Keep it up,

John D

[Dee Dee]

Hi, Ms. Francisco,

I strongly disagree with you that Google's decision is "evil". Google Chinese searches will contain a disclaimer stating that the results are filtered according to local laws and regulations. When Chinese people increasing do business with Westerners, and become more adept and dependent themselves on Internet technology, it will become more and more apparent that they aren't getting its full benefit. They will much more likely be moved to work for change if they have a taste of what they're missing.

Is it also wrong for democracy-loving citizens to travel to China and obey the laws? If so, Chinese people will never know what they're missing compared to a "free" society.

I would suggest that we focus our moral outrage and values on our own government so that we will have an example of freedom that we can proudly set forth. As we allow our own government to become increasingly oppressive, there will soon be little difference in information and privacy in China versus in the United States, and the issue will be moot.

[gary pearson]

Google's position with the Chinese and US governments are clearly two seperate issues.
Google can forget having a positive impact toward freedom in the future with the Chinese, if they do not make some short term concessions. Oh, and when they resisted the recent US government requests, the stock tanked. They showed their true colors there.

[Emilio Gonzalez, Jr.]

Twenty-Six Jan O'Six

Hi Bambi:

I sincerely disagree with your opinions as expressed in "True Colors". Google's true colors, as are mine and most Americans' are green and black [By the way, when people said "Black is beautiful, they must have been thinking of you =:) -- if you're not African American I apologize; I'm from Spain and North Africa by way of Cuba, so I'm also "African American". Actually, all us humans are "African" since the species started there =;)]

Sorry, I digress.

My opinions/responses:

A glass half full or half empty is better than an empty one or none at all; otherwise there is no water to drink, even if it's "Chinese tea"

If the Chinese ruled the world, history would be writen..etc. I got news for you honey, history is ALWAYS written by the winners; jusr read "The Bible"!

Complying with a power hungry dictatorship is caving in--I guess we all [learn to]censor ourselves for our survival, always at a very costly price. It's not referred to as "biting one's tongue" for nothing =:)

Finally, I disagree on valuation.

Google is worth whatever they can get away with, because they are a font of information (knowledge) and knowledge is power, not to mention $. Wall Street is not anything an emotional herd of traders, and rationality goes out the window in the face of exhuberance and the best search engine ever. I just hope it's not me going out of a 13nth story window if/when my "investment" in GOOG tanks (I "got into it" just recently--Yikes!)

Google is fast becoming humankind's greatest library, and as a faithful former user of my dear ol' NY Public Library I'm glad it's available at the click of a mouse, and not the price of a ticket back "home".

Much as I loved the Big Apple by the Hudson while growing up, I prefer Bagdhad by the Bay(Area), where I now live, even more=;)

I love your columns, keep them up and posted. I always check CBSMarketBlahBlah for your thoughts, if only to look at your picture!

Respect(as in "looking at you")fully
A faithful reader and [not so] secret admirer,

eg
(Phew!)

[Steve Hanson]

I agree with their decision to limit search results based on international policy. I believe that once they can get a foothold in the search engine market in China, that they will slowly be able to phase in various tidbits of information, which will help to educate the Chinese society. Oh, and as a side benefit, they will make a couple billion in advertising revenue.

gonights.blogspot.com

[Mark Gilbert]

What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul?

[Brad Barnes]

I disagree completely.

I think that it is clear that this is not the Google way of operating. This is a comproimise based on very shrewed planning.

The market for Google in China FAR expands the search engine. This is merely a segway.

To say that this move will bring very little business in the near future is just plain wrong. I am sure time will show them the money. And they will have their principals too.

[Sean]

Bambi:

I'm not going to deny that it probably had something to do with the
potential billion people surfing the web in China and the advertising
money that can generate. However, their move most definitely had a lot
to do with Google's vision of conveying all information to the entire
world. It had to go to China right now so that it can be there in 10
years when things loosen up. Otherwise, if they hadn't gone right now,
Baidu and Yahoo would have locked them out by the time 2015 rolls
around, and then there'd be 2 companies who don't share Google's ideals
dominating the market. I don't believe that making money and spreading
your vision are mutually exculsive. I do believe that compromise is a
natural part of life, though. In China it's either bend or get nothing,
and to spread the vision, Google had to bend.

[Brian]

Bambi,

Thanks for the article. It is definitely a great topic for discussion.

I think you missed the mark. It is the Chinese government doing the censoring here. That wasn't Google's idea, and Google really has no choice but to either comply with Chinese law or be excluded from the Chinese market. I think everyone is better off if Google at least attempts to be in the market.

Also, I really take issue with your comment that "when starting a business, one has to know whether they're doing it because they want to change the world in a good way, or because they want to make money. It's one or the other, not both." Oh really? So no business that generates a profit can be of value to mankind? Sounds to me like you are saying the real enemy is capitalism. If that is the case, then you ought to be very comfortable with China and their policies.

Regards.

[m.hause]

Wow! Thanks for these observations, Michael.

Would you mind posting on my blog at bambi.blogs.com? I’d like to get a discussion going.

As for your No. 3 point – I realize others are in China and have complied. But the difference is that Yahoo, MSN, etc. don’t try to be outliers. They don’t take every opportunity to say, we’re doing what we do for the users and not for shareholders. I just wanted to bring that point out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: MICHAEL HAUSE [mailto:michaelhause@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 6:07 PM
To: Francisco, Bambi
Subject:

hi Bambi

great article!

You did leave a couple of things out though...

1) china is a communist country posing as a democracy . They want our money THAT IS IT!

2) They are not America! they do not have the freedoms we are blessed with. The Chinese Gov't has allowed western culture in. As Greenspan would say "at a measured pace". The fact that the internet exists there today is to be compared with the berlin wall falling!

3) The other big guns MSN YAHOO ETC...also complied to chinas censorship rules. This to me is the most important fact. yahoo gave out addresses and china arrested several dissidents. GOOGLE DID NOT give out addresses (like the US wants)!

As a shoe manufacturer for 20 years You used to have to dodge out bicycles crossing the streets in china . today your dodging out bmw's and mercedes benz's. I wish we would enforce a child labor law in china if they want to do business with america. Then maybe we could put more of our people to work, but God forbid we pay an extra 10%. I see footwear being made. Like UGGS Australia.. $200.00 boots. MADE IN CHINA!!!!!! The cost for deckers(owner of uggs) is about $20 US. THAT’S WHAT NOT RIGHT!90% of all goods sold at every dept store/ low/ mid and hi end (except true designer merchandice) are made in china.

WE HAVE CLOSED ALMOST EVERY AMERICAN SHOE FACTORY HERE AND SPAIN AS WELL. why??? because china allows 8 yr old kid work 16 hoyr days to earn anbout 20cents a day with a 20minute break.

WE SHOULD NOT BAG ON GOOGLE BUT APPLAUD THEM FOR FOLLOWING THEIR COUNTRIES RULES AND GETTING IN THE DOOR.

WE SHOULD BAG ON EVERY DEPARTMENT AND BOX RETAILER FOR SUPPORTING CHINA AND DECEIVING THE AMERICAM PEOPLE WITH A SALE THAT REALLY ISNT A SALE . THEIR INITIAL MARK-UP IS SO HIGH THAT @ 50% OFF THEY'RE STILL MAKING UNBELIEVABLE MARGINS..... 39-54% ON AVERAGE. THAT WHY FEDERATED WAS ABLE TO BUY may co. that why nordstrom ..

Is doing so well. more profit per item , less items sold. huge change from what JWN used to stand for . NOW THEY SELL YOU CRAP, BUT WITH A SMILE AND SERVICE..... JOKES' ON US.
Thank you and have a great day .. and please support google...They really deserve it. Our country has different standards then china , iraq, africa iran etc.......IT IS 1 NATION UNDER GOD.... HOPEFULLY THE REST WILL CATCH UP. BUT KEEP IN MIND THEYRE CULTURES ARE THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD OURS IS A COUPLE HUNDRED YEARS OLD.

[Brad]

Bambi, as a former Google employee, I strongly disagree with this article. I can tell you that Google's core values are so central to the management that this move pains them greatly. However, at the end of the day, they had to either censor search results now or not reach the chinese audience at all. This was the ultimatum. Google believes very very strongly in free speech, but they also believe that you can exact change over time. That is what they will try to do. As the Chinese people begin to use Google, their interest in free speech will influence the government. Over time, sentiment will shift toward a less filtered version of Google.

Lately it seems that people are spinning their actions in a way that is unjust and not based on the actual intentions of the company. I can tell you from first hand experience that you will not find a company anywhere that is more dedicated to its core values than Google. Google is not evil.

[Ernest Alba]

What a difficult situation for Google. Let's just hope Google doesn't ever have to make such a difficult decision again. This is the difference between realism and idealism - Google is a realist. In order to pursue their ideals in the real world, they have to make compromises. Their decision to adhere to China's laws probably gives them a better opportunity to eventually spread their ideals to more people.

History as WE know it is skewed already by Western civilization. Having it skewed by a different civilization is not any worse or better. Unless it is an alien civilization that's out to destroy us. Then it's worse.

[Andy]

Every company is financially based, and google is no exception. Either do limited business or no business, that's an easy decision. It's understandable a company can try to be something that everyone likes, but eventually, the money issue would come along. Who would refuse millions of dollars to sell out these days. Everyone talks noble, but when the decision comes along, that's it. I applaud google for their mission statement of "do no evil", but what company does not originally have something like that. I'm microsoft and I want to have a monopoly in the OS market.

[John C. Randolph]

Tom,

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. By making a deal with the regime that murdered over 77 million Chinese and helping the Red Dynasty to continue to rule China, Google is an accessory to a vast crime. By helping the ChiComs to cover up their bloody history, Google's actions are tantamount to holocaust denial. Make no mistake, they have made an evil choice, and if the only consequences they suffer for it are to be excoriated by news columnists, then they're getting off lightly indeed.

I hope that when the Chinese overthrow the Red Empire, they'll remember who helped the thugs, and make their displeasure known.

-jcr

[Wil]

I agree with M. Hause. There's no difference between Yahoo, MSN, and Google: they have all complied with the Chinese government in favor of profits.

[John C. Randolph]

Brad,

Your statement is in the wrong tense. Google may not have been evil as late as last week, but today it is as evil as any of the industrialists who supported Hitler.

-jcr

[John C. Randolph]

Earnest,

Let me just point out to you that slavery was driven almost to extinction because of the "skewing" that occured when western civilization became disgusted with it, and stamped it out over the objections of EVERYBODY else. To try to draw a moral equivalence between western civilization, and the communist regime in China is absolutely absurd.

-jcr

[Joseph Witowsky]

Bambi

In your recent commentary entitled, "Google shows its true colors," you elucidate on your belief that withholding some information from the Chinese masses is worse than withholding it all. You argue that Google has withered from its once strong moral stance and has now succumbed to the monetary temptations and pressures of the business world.

I continue to find it unbelievable how seemingly intelligent people see this as such a black and white issue. It is utterly ridiculous to me. Can no one convey the idea that Google made the best choice in its decision for EVERYONE involved - The Chinese population, Google shareholders, the business commnunity, and humanity? Google appears to me to be THE BEST choice to enter China's rapidly growing and EVOLVING (key word there) markets. And they are doing so ni what will prove to be the CORRECT time, and in the best manner possible given the current geopolitical envirinment.

Google will provide its services in China in a limited capacity - suppressing information that the government deems threatening. However, it will TELL Chinese internet users that information has been suppressed every time it occurs. Give SOME credit to the Chines people - don't belittle their intelligence. The sparks of info that Google will provide and OVERTLY supress will fan the flames of curiosity in this very intelligent and increasingly aware population. The combination of China slowly cracking open its doors to capitalism (even their restrained version of it) and the piqued curiosity and increasing capitalistic drive of its people will ultimately allow for unrestricted free flow of information to the Chinese - in whatever way they can get it. As the flow becomes less restrictive (despite efforts by the govt. to impede it) Google will have been firmly and DYNAMICALLY (another key word there) entrenching itself in the daily lives of the Chinese masses. It can then more obviously serve everyone as originally intended - consumers, customers, investors - oh - and, since everyone is making this such a huge philosophical issue - the rest of mankind. Renounce their core values? Submit to the temptations of the business community and the almighty dollar? Hardly. Call me crazy, but it's apparent to me that Sergey and Larry might, once again, be using a bit of the foresight that has enabled them to glean a touch of success in the little business that they are running...you know, that little business that has become...ohhh...one of the best executed, most pervasive, dynamic, revolutionary, profitable, successful, and humanitarian businesses of all time...darn, I can't think of the name of it right now...hang on...I'll go google it.

[Eliana]

quote: I agree with M. Hause. There's no difference between Yahoo, MSN, and Google: they have all complied with the Chinese government in favor of profits.

-----
No, they aren't. Google.cn is filtering **MORE** sites than MSN or Yahoo. CNet just published an article revealing their results from testing the three Chinese versions of the search engines. While all three block politically "undesirable" sites, Google goes a few steps further and blocks sites with references to sexual health, homosexuality, jokes and alcohol.

Neither Microsoft nor Yahoo ever bragged about their alleged high moral standards. This is the reason neither had to face such intense media coverage when they elected to take their businesses into China. If Google execs had kept their mouths shut about their little slogan, they wouldn't have this problem.

CNet article: http://news.com.com/What+Google+censors+in+China/2100-1030_3-6031727.html

[Mike]

Bambi, why are you removing my comments? Are you a hypocrite? You criticize goog for caving into China and here you are censoring posts? Quite hypocritical, don't you think?

As i was saying, i found it odd you were seemingly pumping this stock along with Schactner's ("Goog to 600") just over a month ago, but now you are bashing it at every turn? Have you realized finally the money is in trading goog, not writing about it?!

Anyway, i like you're latest article. But only the naive will not see through it (i guess that's 90% of GOOG investors!). Cleary, you are attempting raise expectations for GOOG's earnings ( akin to the "whisper numbers" of the bubble era ), in hope that they will not make the expectations you are attempting to define. I'm curious, was this article quickly whipped up because of GOOG's after hours performance today? I especially like this quote in your article: "...some investors believe Google has to hit $11.50 in 2006 earnings to justify its stock price". Now Bambi, just who are these investors? Yahoo message board posters maybe? Since when does reputable correspondents reference Yahoo chat room posters and since when are those posters considered "investors"?

You have truly gotten a bit outrageous and apparently obessed with GOOG lately dear. This coming from someone without a position, but who enjoy the debates none the less. (btw, i too question goog's valuation and lasting power).

[Mike]

Good post Joseph Witowsky and my sentiments exactly. For their to be a revolution (or evolution if you will), the seeds must be planted. This move by Goog is just that. The need for information is more addictive than any drug, and the Chinese gov't will not be able to stop it.

[Eliana]

Before this alleged "revolution/evolution," Google will have to comply with Chinese law. What's going to happen when government officials demand user information from Google? Would Google hand it over to them, like Yahoo! did, and aid in the persecution of an innocent? Would they do that? I don't think the Chinese government would give them a choice -- comply or forget doing business in the country entirely.

I await the day when Google aids the Chinese regime in tracking down and imprisioning innocent civilians. How evil would they be then?

[bambi]

Mike:
I never removed your comments. I welcome all that are relevant and on topic.

[Leban Zhao]

Your article is very narrow minded and you are just trying to impose the so-called american way.

You are working for CBS. Do you have freedom to go to any websites you want from within CBS network? The answer is NO, just like 99% of US companies do, CBS is restricting where you can get information from the internet.

What's wrong with dictatorship? Ironically, the so-called democratic government here in US is funded by the communist dictators, not by millions, not by billions, but by almost half a trillion USD, YES, that's 500 Billions! Without them, the democracy here would a bankruptcy!

Every country has its laws, and you have to abide by them if you want to do businesses inside that country. In american words, my way or highway.

[Steve]

Bambi, I enjoy your work, but I thought I would send a special kudos on the Google item.

It is a wonderful company, and I appreciate companies who set out to be
good citizens. But I always get unnerved when executives proselytize -- and
the prospectus comments about "don't be evil" didn't sit well with me. The
investors who will push GOOG's shares up to $600 before rationality about valuation and competition sets in may care nary a whit about Google's concessions to China, but I think it says a great deal about the shifting sands at Google's headquarters. Bully for you for devoting a column to a subject that will linger longer than the moment-to-moment ticker activity.

PS--I wrote a column for the Financial Times back in August 2004 that touched upon how going public might undermine Google's corporate ethos. I felt cynical writing it, I feel even worse about being proven right! The germane part is attached:

“Much ink has been spilt over Google's efforts to change how Wall Street does things, which the company underlined in its prospectus with its corporate philosophy "Don't Be Evil". The company aimed to apply its good-citizen ethos to the most unlikely of places - the IPO market. In some respects, it succeeded: small investors had the chance to participate alongside big institutions and Wall Street firms' fees for helping to take
the company public were measly compared with other IPOs.

"It still seems more likely, however, that Google will be changed by Wall Street than that Wall Street will be changed by Google. The company now faces the daily pressure of a million Bloomberg terminals watching every
tick of the company's share price and angry phone calls from institutions if the stock is not rising. Wall Street is amoral; it does not care about good or evil, just up or down.

"Jim Goodnight recognised this. Mr Goodnight runs SAS Institute, a highly
successful software company which, like Google, is regarded as one of the best places to work in America. But most readers have probably never heard of him or his company, unless they watched the 2003 profile of it on CBS's 60 Minutes. Despite enormous pressure to go public in 2000, Mr Goodnight refused - even though it would have made him a billionaire many times over, he realised it would ruin the corporate culture he had cultivated over 25 years.
"Google had a responsibility to its early investors and employees to go public. Despite the pressures it now faces, many hope the company will retain the ideals and culture that have helped make it so successful. But it would be much easier for Google to live up to those ideals if it had
never gone public at all.”

[Toby Hudon]

So let me get this straight, Google is "compromising their morals" and "being evil" by giving people information? Oh right, they're taking it away from... oh wait nobody. China's the one enforcing censorship. So giving people some information but not all is evil, but giving them no information is not evil? Sorry, the logic doesn't work.

Unless you're idealistic to the point of watching your feet while you walk to be sure you don't step on any ants, you can see how this doesn't compromise Google at all. As if their not opening a Chinese service is going to mean anything to anyone that matters as a political statement. It won't. Giving people at least some power when you can't give them everything is not evil. It's much easier to work against an oppressive system from the inside then to shout impotently from the outside like everyone on the web seems to be doing.

So where's the outcry over Google's censoring Nazi searches in Germany and France according to local laws? Where's the outcry over their removal of certain information at the request of the Church of Scientology? Where's the protests over the removal of pornography from google images by default? Hey we should give everyone ALL information right? Or is it only ok when it's "good" information where "good" is defined as what you say it is? Give me a break. It's not like they're handing journalists over to the Chinese government for prosecution like Yahoo. It's not like Google is inventing the censoring rules.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

"Every person is responsible for only the good within his abilities, and for no more, and no one can tell whose sphere is the largest." -- Gail Hamilton

[Toby Hudon]

P.S. If you're wondering how I found your blog, I saw a copy of this post on http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/060126/15/3y7zo.html . Putting "Bambi Francisco" into http://www.google.cn brings this up at the first page. But I guess it'd be better if I was just left in the dark. Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter since http://www.baidu.com/ also brings it up as the first result.

[John C. Randolph]

Mr. Zhao,

It may interest you to know that your claim of 99% of US companies restricting the sites that employees can see from within the corporate network is 100% nonsense. Even if it were true, are you unable to see the difference between a private organization deciding what it wants done with its facitilies, and a brutal regime trying to prevent the people it rules from even discovering the magnitude of its crimes?

Most people in China have NO IDEA that Mao killed 77 million Chinese. The Japanese in world war two were vicious occupiers, but they can't hold a candle to the Communist's genocidal rampage in Tibet, or the carnage the Red Guard inflicted on their own people by forcing farmers to starve while Mao shipped food out of the country.

As for following the "law" in China, when the government of China begins to obey laws, instead of simply murdering its critics, maybe you'll have a leg to stand on.

-jcr

[Gabbahead]

It's quite amazing how people love to jump on this bandwagon. It's also amazing how so many liberal-minded people took on a black-and-white perspective similar to the U.S. government.

Most of all, for so many people who want to 'save' China, few actually know anything of the country and probably think it's exactly like North Korea. Stop having knee-jerk reactions and go and read more about this - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4654014.stm - before screaming your thoughts.

Lastly, stop being so goddamn stupid tha you eatup a company's slogan and then think it clever when you manage to 'catch' them not sticking to it. O, and try and look into how other countries also censor us and fight that fight.

Is the world full of pubescant teenagers or something? Please stop being so damn naive, thinking that it makes you clever or something. Sanctions and such actions don't work and Google not playing by China's rules would be a hollow and poinless victory. This is not the same as when Yahoo have up that jounalist. Not at all.

[Leban Zhao]

To John C. Randolph, you are just 100% stupid to think it's nonsense to claim 99% of US companies restricting where their employees can go on internet. Sorry your claim doesn't interest me at all. Your argument between private corporations and government is very weak and lame.

Your of claim of Mao killing 77 million chinese is 100% irresponsible. This, and irresponsible reporting of US journalists on issues in China, is the main reason that Chinese becomes very sick on any of US news media. Be sure that you have facts behind you. If the government killed millions here and millions there, how would the chinese poplulation triple to almost 1.5B from 450M when they took over! Are you just plain stupid or what?

If you talk about government crimes and brutal regimes, look no further, just look at your own backyard.

[theCreator]

Come on. At least they are the last of the Big search companies to surrender to the lure of Chinese cash. They should count for something no?

[Mike]

Leban Zhao,
Perhaps if you could express yourself in a more civil manner, folks would take your posts more seriously. I am sure i will be honored with one of you "stupid" label for this post as well.

Bottom line, GOOGLE was not wrong in this move. There needs to be a balance between investors interest and public interest. I believe GOOG did the right thing. I maintain that you will not be able to force change in China from the outside, it can only be done from within. Google is right, it is better to offer some information rather than none at all. Planting the seeds...planting the seeds folks. In time, China will change as their generation X grows older, it is inevitable.

[Leban Zhao]

Mike, my comments or lables are for those blindly making up numbers and ignoring facts.

As for your comments on attempts to change China from whichever direction, it's just laughable. A country with less of 300 years of history and having no cultural depth can change a country and culture of 5000 years? Dream on.

[Yassir]

Ms. Francisco,
First thanks for standing by your principles, unlike Google, and so many other writers covering this issue. Let me also say your Netsense column is practically the only reason I subscribe to MarketWatch.

I think the point to be stressed here, as you do, is that what Google is doing must be seen in light of its highly-touted motto to 'Do No Evil.' I've argued similarly at www.tangledknot.com If Google wants to be behave like any other profit-seeking corporation that's fine. It just needs to drop its 'holier than thou' attitude and motto. Secondly, all this babble about Google doing what's best for its stockholders. Well I'm a Google stockholder and I like to invest in companies that behave ethically so I won't be a Google stockholder for much longer. Lastly, I'm appalled by all those who write that we must 'simply obey' the laws of the lands. There were laws in the USA at one time that prevented women from voting, or inter-racial couples from marrying. An unjust law is no law at all. Such spineless reasoning and abdicaton of any ethical responsiblity in the hope of making a few bucks is truly disheartening. Google needs China more than the Chinese need Google. Lets get over this red herring that Google's granting the Chinese masses some sort of favor. Google is only there because making a buck is more important than standing up for basic human rights, and its siding with a government that imprisons, tortures, and kills its own citizens to do so.

[Mike]

Leban Zhao,
you seem to have an attention or comprehension problem. Read what i am stating carefully. Here is a quote to make it easier for you.

"I maintain that you will not be able to force change in China from the outside, it can only be done from within".

Now, that said, regarding your comments. What does age have to do with anything? You are quick to attack but your arguements and comments are ridiculous. History is littered with civilizations older than the US that no longer exists. You talk of the 5000 year history of China. Well, how old is Communism itself? And in that time, how many countries have fallen that practiced it because they let an economic model influence their social model of how they deal with their citizen? History and age has nothing to do with it. It's RECENT HISTORY that has everything to do with the inevitable.

Grow up and research a bit more before you make ridiculous comments?

[Leban Zhao]

To Mike,
The attention or comprehension problem seems to fit you a lot better. I was commenting on "attempts to change China from WHICHEVER DIRECTION", and was "laughing" at your "seeds" theory because it's not even a hypothesis.

I'm very sorry that you try to compare US with other failed civilizations, I'm not surprised and I won't stop you. You asked me
how many communist countries have fallen, I'm asking you how many of them keep falling and FAILING after changing their political system?

History has lots to do with how well a culture or civilization under various conditions, favorable or hostile. A civilization with rich history and cultural depth will assure itself and not follow others, will endure adversity and be patient for it's chance. Obviously, you don't know any of these.

You might have grown up, but apparently you are not educated the right way along the way.