"Many people inside and outside the company consider government censorship to be a human-rights violation."
It's right there in the US Constitution Bill of Rights.
It's right there in the US Constitution Bill of Rights.
In 1964 America, some types of rights-violating discrimination that (as generally understood due to the victory of the Union in the Civil War) the government ought not to engage in, were suddenly also banned from the sphere of corporate activity. [1] I wasn't born at the time, but I understand that there were many US locales where the discrimination forbidden to government had been retained, and remained widespread, via delegation to businesses.
Are we headed to a similar battle around online free speech? I personally don't want Western businesses to help implement censorship in any country, whether express or local, whether administrative or corporate.
A censored search engine is a gray PSYOP weapon.
> Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.
Therefore more important/vital, yet given the transnational nature, also less difficult to "enforce".
Personally, I'd rather see something like Google that operated outside all jurisdictions, and was entirely uncensored. And not advertising driven. But so it goes.
Let me get this straight. You argue that these US documents apply in China? That's quite the claim. Believers in the proto-US fought a war against England over those issues, after all. And that ain't gonna happen in China.
And, yes, inalienable rights apply in China. If it is good and proper to be offended by how someone is treated regardless of legal context, there is an implicit inalienable right. Ad absurdum, we expect freedom from rape, justice broadly defined, freedom from genocide, and many other things. If Elbonia passed a law saying lynching of minorities was OK, they'd be wrong. That's what makes the relevant rights inalienable.
Not at all. I argued that certain human rights are inherent to being human. The US Constitution does not invent or bestow those rights, it recognizes and guarantees them. (And yes, the US government has fallen short of that now and then.)
Still, as much as I (and arguably, most of those reading this) agree with that claim, the fact remains that the Chinese government (and arguably, much if not most, of China's population) do not. And there are norms and laws there which are inconsistent with that claim. And furthermore, that situation is certainly not unique to China.
Also, there's the internationally recognized expectation that businesses are subject to at least the laws of places where they do business. And governments are not shy about enforcing their laws. So if Google wants to do business in China, it must accept Chinese jurisdiction. Just as Google must comply with EU regulations and court orders in order to do business there.
And yes, I get the argument that Google ought to stay out of China, on moral grounds. Back when South Africa practiced apartheid, I would have expected Google to shun that market.
However, I don't believe that Google has exited the Israeli market, in protest over human rights abuse against Palestinians. Or more generally, against a theocratic government that discriminates against all non Jews.
Also, Google is clearly cooperating with the EU regarding the "right to be forgotten". On its face, that violates the right to free speech. Although an exception could be justified by other enumerated human rights, that seems inconsistent with libel precedents in the US.
Finally, if we expect Google to stay out of China on moral grounds, what about all of the other firms that have invested in Chinese businesses, buy products from them, and otherwise participate in the Chinese economy? Why isn't there pressure to divest and sanction, as there has been regarding North Korea, Iran, Russia, and so on? As there was regarding South Africa, during apartheid? Why isn't there pressure for Apple etc to source components elsewhere?
What's so special about Google, in this regard?