A little over a month ago, when Google made defiant noises of shutting down its office in China, the stand-off was phrased with great fanfare as the new clash of civilisations. Google stood for the innovative, knowledge-based western culture: the free world. China, well, for China: mixed ownership, private property rights, strong shut-your-mouth government intervention.
Google said in January that it was likely to close down its China-based search engine as it believed digital bandits in China stole some of its computer coding and attempted to break into the e-mail accounts of Chinese dissidents. It is interesting to note that the agency representing the universal spirit of freedom has been relegated in our mind from a country or a people to a multinational company that specialises in organising information online.
Safeguarding freedom and human rights is traditionally associated with the dogged American pursuit of happiness. The US monopoly of freedom is now strangely the home turf of Google. The US is happy to back it, of course. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton's defence of Google last month in a reaction to Chinese cyber vandalism was proof that US foreign policy now extended to the internet.
Clinton added to the four basic freedoms that Franklin Roosevelt stated in the 1941 State of the Union address, against the backdrop of Hitlerian assaults on the democratic sensibility of the world. The four basic freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear that "people everywhere in the world ought to enjoy." Clinton added the freedom to connect. As she said in her speech on January 21: "... ultimately, this issue isn't just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit. It's about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors."
Since Google is the champion of a new freedom spawned by a new technology, what it does is likely to largely define the nature of the lifestyle of future generations. But, it has been a disappointing battle so far. Google officials say they are in talks with the Chinese government since mid-January, when they threatened to walk out of China, unless that country rolled back its censorship laws.
China's online population is 384 million, the largest in the world. Most of them prefer the local engine Baidu to Google. Reports estimate that by 2014, China's internet ad market could range from $15 billion to $20 billion annually, up from about $3 billion now. If Google stays on, it is likely to net around $5 billion to $6 billion of the revenue even if it plays second fiddle to Baidu.
That's a lot of money to kiss goodbye to. Which is why after the fleeting first moments of bravado and grandstanding, Google has kept a low profile and the much-hyped confrontation with the 'Other' culture has muted down to confabulations.
One of the famous philosophies of Google is "you can make money without doing evil." This is a questionable premise as a lot really depends on what you mean by evil. Baldly put, if Google chooses to stay on in China despite censorship and hacking, it'd be for profit. And that'd be at the expense of basic freedoms and at the expense of a few hundred lives at least. If that transpires evil would have been perpetrated any way.
The current clash of civilisations turns out to be not so much about a new freedom as an old and careworn spectre: the ethics of business. It'd be great fun to see if one of the world's most innovative companies can indeed find a way around making money without doing evil. Virtually, or otherwise.
Google said in January that it was likely to close down its China-based search engine as it believed digital bandits in China stole some of its computer coding and attempted to break into the e-mail accounts of Chinese dissidents. It is interesting to note that the agency representing the universal spirit of freedom has been relegated in our mind from a country or a people to a multinational company that specialises in organising information online.
Safeguarding freedom and human rights is traditionally associated with the dogged American pursuit of happiness. The US monopoly of freedom is now strangely the home turf of Google. The US is happy to back it, of course. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton's defence of Google last month in a reaction to Chinese cyber vandalism was proof that US foreign policy now extended to the internet.
Clinton added to the four basic freedoms that Franklin Roosevelt stated in the 1941 State of the Union address, against the backdrop of Hitlerian assaults on the democratic sensibility of the world. The four basic freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear that "people everywhere in the world ought to enjoy." Clinton added the freedom to connect. As she said in her speech on January 21: "... ultimately, this issue isn't just about information freedom; it is about what kind of world we want and what kind of world we will inhabit. It's about whether we live on a planet with one internet, one global community, and a common body of knowledge that benefits and unites us all, or a fragmented planet in which access to information and opportunity is dependent on where you live and the whims of censors."
Since Google is the champion of a new freedom spawned by a new technology, what it does is likely to largely define the nature of the lifestyle of future generations. But, it has been a disappointing battle so far. Google officials say they are in talks with the Chinese government since mid-January, when they threatened to walk out of China, unless that country rolled back its censorship laws.
China's online population is 384 million, the largest in the world. Most of them prefer the local engine Baidu to Google. Reports estimate that by 2014, China's internet ad market could range from $15 billion to $20 billion annually, up from about $3 billion now. If Google stays on, it is likely to net around $5 billion to $6 billion of the revenue even if it plays second fiddle to Baidu.
That's a lot of money to kiss goodbye to. Which is why after the fleeting first moments of bravado and grandstanding, Google has kept a low profile and the much-hyped confrontation with the 'Other' culture has muted down to confabulations.
One of the famous philosophies of Google is "you can make money without doing evil." This is a questionable premise as a lot really depends on what you mean by evil. Baldly put, if Google chooses to stay on in China despite censorship and hacking, it'd be for profit. And that'd be at the expense of basic freedoms and at the expense of a few hundred lives at least. If that transpires evil would have been perpetrated any way.
The current clash of civilisations turns out to be not so much about a new freedom as an old and careworn spectre: the ethics of business. It'd be great fun to see if one of the world's most innovative companies can indeed find a way around making money without doing evil. Virtually, or otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment