|
|
|
|
|
|
by whatyoucantsay
2874 days ago
|
|
|
> I think this is all premised on the belief that American corporations somehow have the moral obligation (and right) to change the way things in a different country work. > China has its own functioning tech ecosystem, so entrant companies need to play by its rules if they want to make a profit there. Period. Nazi Germany also had "its own functioning tech ecosystem". So did Stalin and Mao's even more murderous regimes. Moral obligations don't stop at borders. |
|
|
My argument is about American corporations imposing morality (or thinking they can). Corporations' main motivation is profit, not improving human rights. Google doesn't go to China with the primary intention of improving human rights, rather to make a profit from Chinese citizens.
Google would have to pay Chinese taxes to operate there, their presence puts money into the hands of the CCP, an entity the author of the article doesn't approve of. Google has no leverage: China has its own perfectly capable search engine[s].
So as I see it, the options are:
1. American corporation enters China, plays by rules, causes no political change.
2. American corporation doesn't enter China. Local Chinese companies fill the void, causing no political change.
In neither case is any political change effected. If the bemoaning comes from the point of view of "well Google could have changed something," I think that's naïve and I'd like to see evidence of this happening successfully
If it comes from the perspective of "Google is capitulating or funding a government that I as the author/Westerners don't support in general", then that's an argument involving moral absolutism, which is a longer debate.
If you have time, I'd like to hear your thoughts on what you think Google should be doing.