| Straight to Godwin's law (in this case, I think it's germane). 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. |