Argument: As a business, Google shouldn’t interfere with domestic politics

Business is business and politics is politics – and the two shouldn’t mingle. When a company wants to operate in a foreign country, it should respect the government and its regulations. We require the same when a company wants to operate within our territory: suppose a big Chinese company came to our home country and suddenly started criticizing our domestic policies – these are the policies of the sovereign state whose territory it is, and outsiders have no place to tell it how to run itself. [1]

[1] Nicholas Deleon, TechChrunch, ‘China has every right to be upset with Google right now’, March 23, 2010. URL: http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/23/china-has-every-right-to-be-upset-with-google-right-now/ Last consulted: December 22, 2011

Candidate 1: "Google’s business is inseparable from basic human rights

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a UN conference, affirmed that access to information is a basic human right, a corollary to the freedom of opinion and expression as articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] It is a right because access to information is often basic to human life; to how to live in society, to work and to educate ourselves. China ratified the Universal Declaration back in 1948 when it was accepted by the UN’s General Assembly, and was a party to the WSIS 2003 conference. This means that, if China is to be a responsible member of the international community, we can expect them to uphold the principles they publicly declare.

Google’s mission is ‘to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful’. Note that this mission happens to coincide with the basic human right of access to information. This is why Google’s choice to interfere with China’s domestic politics isn’t just ‘big business interfering with a state’s sovereign politics’ – it’s a case of a big business whose business model happens to be providing a basic human right the sovereign state should have, by its own accord, provided a long time ago.

[1] World Summit on the Information Society, ‘Declaration of Principles. Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium’, December 12, 2003. URL: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html Last consulted: December 22, 2011"
Candidate 2: "Staying will not help Chinese internet freedom at all

If google.cn was to be left uncensored, then within a short period, google.cn would lose its license to operate and will be pulled down. Chinese internet users will then have to rely either on Baidu, which provides more or less the same results as Google, or will have to try to break through the blockades of the Great Firewall to reach the Hong Kong-based Google. If Google does censor itself, it will only state ‘some results have not been shown’ – Chinese citizens still won’t know what has been hidden. Unless they then try to access the Hong Kong based Google, but then the Great Firewall will stop them anyway. Either way, Chinese citizens will be blocked from seeing what their government doesn’t want them to see, so what’s the difference? Google might as well stick to its principles and not censor itself."
Candidate 3: "Google’s revenues wont decline because of this

Google as a company is still going strong – in the third quarter of 2011, it managed to exceed analysts’ expectations and posted impressive revenue growth. Most importantly, the figures showed that finally the revenue from its mobile and video advertising platform started to come in. This means that the revenue for Google is now starting to come from all over their business portfolio, instead of coming from the search platform alone. [1] This result shows that Google’s revenues won’t sag a bit because of this choice.

Also, as argued above, by staying true to its company motto, Google actually strengthens, not weakens, its position with regards to the rest of the world – and possibly eventually in a democratic China.

[1] Financial Times, ‘Google shares soar on higher earnings’, October 13, 2011. URL: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/f5a8a1c6-f5da-11e0-bcc2-00144feab49a.html#axzz1hJ3EofDe"

Google’s business is inseparable from basic human rights

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a UN conference, affirmed that access to information is a basic human right, a corollary to the freedom of opinion and expression as articulated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [1] It is a right because access to information is often basic to human life; to how to live in society, to work and to educate ourselves. China ratified the Universal Declaration back in 1948 when it was accepted by the UN’s General Assembly, and was a party to the WSIS 2003 conference. This means that, if China is to be a responsible member of the international community, we can expect them to uphold the principles they publicly declare.

Google’s mission is ‘to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful’. Note that this mission happens to coincide with the basic human right of access to information. This is why Google’s choice to interfere with China’s domestic politics isn’t just ‘big business interfering with a state’s sovereign politics’ – it’s a case of a big business whose business model happens to be providing a basic human right the sovereign state should have, by its own accord, provided a long time ago.

[1] World Summit on the Information Society, ‘Declaration of Principles. Building the Information Society: a global challenge in the new Millennium’, December 12, 2003. URL: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html Last consulted: December 22, 2011
