Reporters love nothing more than reporting on their previous reports and taking credit. Of course only accounts that confirm their narrative and friendly quotes (from their sources) make into publication.
There is nothing wrong with a company seeking to enter new markets especially that their absence from these countries doesn't change a thing.
> There is nothing wrong with a company seeking to enter new markets
I mean, this is clearly wrong. You may not draw the line at China's human rights abuses, but you would probably draw the line somewhere. Maybe at a country that trades child slaves? Would it be ok for Google to create a special version of their search engine that only says good things about child slavery in order to "enter a new market"?
Just because a company's activities can be reduced to a P&L statement doesn't mean corporations' activities have no moral dimension, or that they are somehow beyond moral judgement.
No need for silly hypotheticals, China is a WTO member that has been globally recognized and normalized, doing business there isn't taboo, at least not for everyone else.
Doing business isn't the problem. The problem is that Google is creating a censored version of their search engine. Rather than simply turning a blind eye to China's abuses, they're actively helping the communist party perpetuate those abuses.
Additionally, your flippant dismissal of "silly hypotheticals" is particularly misplaced. Maybe read about some of the things they've done to the Falun Gong and what occurred at Tiananmen square. These aren't small abuses that can be overlooked, and no American company should be complicit in helping the Chinese government keep these things quiet.
> Doing business isn't the problem. The problem is that Google is creating a censored version of their search engine.
Search is their business and they won't be allowed to conduct it there without censorship.
The vast majority of search queries have little to do with the conduct of the Chinese government, and if you hadn't noticed Google's absence from china didn't liberate the Chinese people.
With $100b+ in the bank it's obvious they need to cash in on Chinese oppression and impede human rights as effectively as they can. Just because they have $100b+ in the bank doesn't mean they can't run out of runway and shut down in several thousand years, so it's as courageous as it is vital. It's almost as courageous as not paying taxes or calling your employees contractors to not pay health care.
Are their shareholders making them? I mean, it is Google's responsibility to continue to return value (ahem, money) to shareholders, so if shareholders think Google is leaving money on the table by not being in China, Google could have issues if they don't do this.
Doesn't make it right by any stretch, I just wonder who's motivation it is.
13 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 39.4 ms ] threadThere is nothing wrong with a company seeking to enter new markets especially that their absence from these countries doesn't change a thing.
I mean, this is clearly wrong. You may not draw the line at China's human rights abuses, but you would probably draw the line somewhere. Maybe at a country that trades child slaves? Would it be ok for Google to create a special version of their search engine that only says good things about child slavery in order to "enter a new market"?
Just because a company's activities can be reduced to a P&L statement doesn't mean corporations' activities have no moral dimension, or that they are somehow beyond moral judgement.
Additionally, your flippant dismissal of "silly hypotheticals" is particularly misplaced. Maybe read about some of the things they've done to the Falun Gong and what occurred at Tiananmen square. These aren't small abuses that can be overlooked, and no American company should be complicit in helping the Chinese government keep these things quiet.
Search is their business and they won't be allowed to conduct it there without censorship.
The vast majority of search queries have little to do with the conduct of the Chinese government, and if you hadn't noticed Google's absence from china didn't liberate the Chinese people.
Right. Nor should they if that is the cost of doing business. Sometimes there are lines that shouldn't be crossed.
> if you hadn't noticed Google's absence from china didn't liberate the Chinese people.
"I haven't been helping any thieves for the last decade, but robberies still keep happening. I might as well get in on it and make some money."
Sorry, but I have a hard time taking your arguments seriously. You seem to be working very hard to miss the point.
You're making Habitue's argument for them.
This is basically equivalent that corporations can do no wrong as long as it is in a "new market". This is ludicrous.
This world would be a much better place if more people did that rather than looking the other way and acting as mercenaries for the highest bidder.
Doesn't make it right by any stretch, I just wonder who's motivation it is.