EDITORIAL – Google in China is business as usual

Once upon a time, the Internet was an untamed wilderness. It was new, mysterious and seemingly… Once upon a time, the Internet was an untamed wilderness. It was new, mysterious and seemingly too big to be controlled. Just as the wild, wild West eventually lost its outlaws and settled down, though, the Internet is slowly and surely being regulated.

Google, as a cyberspace-organizing superpower, has had a lot to do with furthering the spread of information and ideas across the world. Recently, they announced their decision to expand into China. There’s nothing surprising about that – China is the world’s second-largest Internet market and Google is in the business of profiting off of Internet users. Their stockholders are likely to see a profit following the expansion.

What is mildly surprising is their decision to self-censor. In order to enter the Chinese market, Google had to acquiesce to the government’s demands. After a few years of deliberation, they came to the conclusion that sending some information China’s way is better than not sending any at all; whether their move is profit-based or motivated by a desire to keep the world informed is ultimately irrelevant. Google’s initial plan is to offer Web site, image and local searching, and also Google news.

Before criticizing Google for allowing government intervention, there are a few things that need to be recognized. Several other American companies – Yahoo and Microsoft, for example – have also tailored their products for a Chinese market. Ultimately, all of these companies are businesses, not moral arbiters, and they exist to make a profit.

Also, as much as Americans and Europeans may believe themselves free of censorship, there are a number of restrictions placed on their viewing rights. Information is kept off of the Web by America’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the European Union’s EU Copyright Directive. These regulations restrict the flow of copyrighted material. They cover the music and movies at the core of the “illegal downloading” dispute, but also extend further. An anti-Scientology Web site in the Netherlands, for example, was shut down amid charges of misusing copyrighted images and information.

Some European countries place blocks on neo-Nazi Web sites, and there are also cross-continental restrictions on Internet child pornography. Granted, these topics are taboo for what are generally considered good reasons – but the fact remains that they are a form of information that cannot be readily searched for.

If the modern market truly is a global one, there is nothing shocking in the thought of companies manipulating their products to fit the requests of different cultures. Not everyone is American, and not everyone wants to be – but that shouldn’t stop American companies from competing for business outside of the United States.