Google's ethical contradictions: censorship, privacy, and corporate profits

¶ … Google: Don't Be Evil Unless…" on pages 308-315.

Given its role of providing information to the world, should Google censor searches in China?

Although Google advertises itself as a company which refuses to be "evil," according to the author of the case study, "Google: Don't Be Evil Unless…" Google is still a profit-making entity and places profits before humanitarian ethics. Google has willingly complied with the Chinese government's request to limit the types of information available to Chinese citizens, including filtering out words such as human rights and democracies from search results. China offers a huge, untapped market for Google and Google has been willing to compromise its ethics to access it. Google only agreed to allow greater access to its main site vs. The censored Chinese main site after pressure from human rights groups. Arguably, some access to Google is better than none at all and even the most vigilant Chinese authorities will have trouble exorcizing all potentially revolutionary ideas. But the author argues that Google has been complicit in human rights violations by turning a blind eye to Chinese abuses in exchange for the material benefits it has gained in its relationship with Chinese consumers and that Google could do more to pressure the Chinese to change (Stanwick & Stanwick 2014: 310)

Q2. Why do you think that Google was adamant about not wanting to supply information to the government concerning the Child Online Protection Act? Explain your position.

Google did not want its users to be worried that their personal information would be revealed to government authorities every time they used the search engine. It would also take up a tremendous amount of time for Google (for which Google would not be financially compensated) as well run the risk of forcing Google to reveal proprietary technology (Stanwick & Stanwick 2014: 311). The author suggests that such protests are ironic, given Google's willingness to comply with Chinese authorities and presents its reluctance as a good business decision (given that Google's rivals had complied with an earlier request by the DOJ) not as a genuine ideological stance (Stanwick & Stanwick 2014: 312). Google has also shown a notable lack of concern for users' privacy according to the law of a number of EU nations (Stanwick & Stanwick 2014: 314)

Q3. What do you think Google's rationale was for starting the Google Books Library Project?

The Google Books Library Project would have made out-of-print books accessible to the public in a manner they would not have been before and would also have made copyright-protected works partially accessible. This allowed people who were not located near major academic libraries access to sources they would not be able to read on one hand; on the other hand this was being done without the authors' permission. The project may have begun as a way to increase the circulation of information but it raised concerns about how it compromised the ability of authors to protect their intellectual property, which is increasingly difficult in general in the Internet age.

Q4. Of all the issues discussed in the case, which is most disconcerting to you and why?