{"id":175090,"date":"2010-01-13T10:25:26","date_gmt":"2010-01-13T15:25:26","guid":{"rendered":"tag:business.theatlantic.com,2010:\/\/3.33416"},"modified":"2010-01-13T10:30:52","modified_gmt":"2010-01-13T15:30:52","slug":"google-v-china-the-five-biggest-questions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/175090","title":{"rendered":"Google v. China: The Five Biggest Questions"},"content":{"rendered":"

Google is considering shutting down its Chinese search engine and
\nclosing its offices in China after a series of “targeted” attacks on
\nthe Gmail accounts of human rights activists in the country. In a remarkable and defiant blog post on the company’s website<\/a>,
\nGoogle announced that it is no longer willing to self-censor its search
\nresults on Google.cn. Marc Ambinder and James Fallows have already
\ncontributed fast and excellent analysis. <\/p>\n

I had a lot of
\nquestions about this story. In the spirit of transparency (seems
\nimportant for this story) rather than stir fry my own analysis from
\ntheir thoughts, I’ll share my biggest questions about this story, and
\nthe answers I’ve gleaned.
1) What will be the impact for Google?<\/b><\/p>\n

As a public relations move, this is already going down brilliantly.
\nIt’s difficult to find a newspaper or blog post that isn’t singing
\nGoogle’s praises for finally taking stand against China’s shadowy war
\nagainst free speech. Financially, exiting China is an unknown
\nlong-term sacrifice, but in the short term, leaving the Chinese market
\nwould be the equivalent of cutting off some hair, as opposed to
\nchopping off a major limb. Google is not the main search engine in
\nChina. The company’s revenue from the Chinese market is estimated at
\n$600 million by JP Morgan, about two percent of Google’s yearly revenue
\nprojections, according to paidContent<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2) What will be the impact for China?<\/b>
\nThis is harder to suss out. Google’s exit is economically immaterial to
\nChina. It’s the optics that count. Henry Blodget sees Google’s move as
\na harbinger, giving strength and morale to other countries to stand up
\nagainst the Chinese. He could be right I suppose, but plenty of
\ncompanies who deal with manufacturing in China are unlikely to be
\ndissuaded by free speech issues they’ve known about for years. He also
\nsays that Google’s exit could create a public backlash in China. Again,
\nhe could be right, but Google isn’t the main search engine in China and
\nsavvy Internet users can already use a proxy server or buy a VPN
\nservice to bypass China’s Great Fire Wall, according to Fallows. As for this move’s impact on
\nSino-American relations, it’s really too early to tell<\/a>. The State Department’s statement<\/a> was short and vague.<\/p>\n

3) Wait, Google self-censors itself?<\/b>
\nYes. Google might be the world’s greatest force for openness and
\nfreedom of speech online, but it also strictly adheres to the laws of
\nthe countries where it runs its search engine. In parts of Europe, you
\ncan’t read about neo-Nazis. Thailand, Pakistan, Turkey, Germany and
\nBrazil block<\/a>
\nYouTube. In China, Fallows explains, “searches on the main Google.COM
\nhave been uncensored for material like “Tiananmen Square” or “Dalai
\nLama.””<\/p>\n

4) Could Google have an ulterior motive here?<\/b>
\nAlways seeking the latent angle, Marc relays<\/a>
\ntwo cynical takes: Google’s doing this to cover up for its Google Phone
\ncustomer services problems; and Google’s lobbying for more favorable
\nregulations in the States. Interesting to think about, but I share
\nMarc’s cynicism about the cynicism.<\/p>\n

5) Was this smart for Google?<\/b>
\nLast thing I wanted to share: Fallows had a wonderful interview<\/a> with Google CEO Eric Schmidt at the
\nAtlantic’s “First Draft of History” event. The question about China
\ncomes at the 19:00 mark. A transcript is below the video.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Fallows posits that a Google exit won’t hurt China very much. “I
\nagree,” Schmidt says in the video. “The Chinese, being very clever,
\nhave implemented censorship on a very
\nsmall amount, numerically, of information. For the average Chinese
\ncitizen, this has not inhibited them. We don’t want this model to
\nsucceed, because it violates the fundamental principle of the Internet.
\nYou saw this in Iran, the phenomenal success of an online movement. <\/p>\n

Schmidt added: “We don’t want this model to succeed in other countries
\nbecause it violates the fundamental principles of the Internet, which
\nhave to do with openness and hearing the voices of many.”<\/p>\n

Wrapping up, my sense is that Google prides itself on being more than
\nan ad-supported software and media company. It also considers itself a
\nworldwide symbol for something as ubiquitous and invisible as its
\nsearch robots, which is the human right to free speech and free access
\nto information. This is not a matter of unalloyed altruism. It’s a part
\nof Google’s public image. It’s what makes Google the number-one brand in the world.<\/a> I think today’s decision supports that mantle.


\n

\n Email this Article<\/a>
\n Add to digg<\/a>
\n Add to Reddit<\/a>
\n Add to Twitter<\/a>
\n Add to del.icio.us<\/a>
\n Add to StumbleUpon<\/a>
\n Add to Facebook<\/a>
\n

\n\"\"<\/a>
\n\"\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Google is considering shutting down its Chinese search engine and closing its offices in China after a series of “targeted” attacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights activists in the country. In a remarkable and defiant blog post on the company’s website, Google announced that it is no longer willing to self-censor its search […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1534,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-175090","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175090","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1534"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=175090"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175090\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}