Google: Don’t Stop Us From Censoring
Recently, a number of groups that own shares in Google put forth a shareholder proposal that would require Google to resist government censorship efforts, and to notify users when consorship had occured despite Google’s best efforts. Today, Google’s board of directors issued a recommendation that the proposal be voted down, ensuring the proposal will never have a chance, since the big three of Page, Brin and Schmidt hold 66.2% of all voting power.
The Office of the Comptroller’s proposal argues that the freedom to access information on the Internet is guaranteed by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“Technology companies in the United States such as Google, that operate in countries controlled by authoritarian governments have an obligation to comply with the principles of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights,” the proposal said, naming Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam as countries where governments restrict access to Internet content.
The very arguement is preposterous. The United Nations issues a Declaration of Human Rights, then these countries go completely against it. Rather than asking the United Nations to enforce its declaration and improve human rights, as is its mission, they call on Google to break those countries’ laws in order to make a statement and lose money? Ridiculous.
What’s worse, the shareholders in question are New York City government agency pension funds (who have been beating this drum for over a year), misusing their perceived positions of importance in relation to government agencies in order to lend legitimacy to their attempts to persuade Google, even funneling the request through the office of the Comptroller.
This needs to stop. The job of ending human rights abuses falls with governments, not corporations, since corporations don’t have power over those countries (certainly not China!). By petitioning Google, in a way that is a waste of time and has no hope of succeeding, they draw attention away from government agencies and officials who actually could enact change, and are not doing so. They are only making things worse.
I don’t like Google censoring, and I’ve called them to task for it many times. I want them to choose not to censor, but it is their choice, it is a business and moral decision. To pose as representatives of government, to pretend your words carry authority, and to ask a company to lose money in the pursuit of zero public good, is absurd, and they should shut up, sit down, and think about doing something that really matters.
Otherwise, collect your pensions and leave people who are still in the workforce alone.
Nathan, China doesn’t just censor - that government persecutes people. Citizens are thrown in jail and some have been killed simply for practicing a different religion or protesting for a freer society.
Historically companies with a conscience have chosen not to do business with immoral governments and that has sped progress along (think South African apartheid, and the American business boycott).
Google is a media company, so part of their mission needs to be to report the truth in the face of power. Imagine if the NY Times allowed their editorial choices to be affected by any goverment. They would be taken to task, like Google is.
I believe all of this is fair.
Comment by Hashim | May 2, 2007
Corporations have as much moral and social responsibility as citizens and governments to ensure human rights are respected across the globe. They also have just as much responsibility to ACT morally and ethically in their actions. Have you heard of “corporate social responsibility”?
And the comptroller is the agent authorizes to speak and petition on behalf of the NYC pension funds, which are legitimate shareholders in Google, and who can legitimately express their opinions in such matters.
Comment by Michael Zimmer | May 2, 2007
This is truly disapointing. If the goverment is evil I would expect from Google to know better and not jump on the bandwagon. Comunity gave Google the power and it can take it away from them.
Keep Google Good, dont let it become what every big cooperation became, EVIL. It was a shining example how cooperations can be profitable and Good.
Comment by Nccwarp9 | May 3, 2007
Hashim: All the more reason why we should push our government to do something. Yes, in the past corporations have been able to enact change, but this is China we’re talking about; they’re too big for any company, maybe even too big for our government to handle. And if American businesses don’t compete in China, then Chinese companies are going to wipe the floor with us and hurt our economy twice as much. We need them more than they need us.
And the NY Times analogy: If the Times wanted to publish in China, they’d have to censor. They wouldn’t have a choice, and they’d deal with it, or not do business there at all. And if they didn’t do business, China wouldn’t care.
Michael: They also have a responsibility to make money, to their employees and to the U.S. economy. If they could enact change, then yes, they’d have a social responsibility, but I’m convinced there’s nothing a company as “small” as Google can do to a behemoth like the Chinese government.
I agree that these are legitimate shareholders. However, they continue to cite the pension funds, as though these are the proclamations of government agencies and not self-righteous retirees and pension fund managers. They don’t represent the NYPD, but they put NYPD in every one of these stories to lend an increased air of legitimacy. Also, the New York City comptroller is a semi-important politician, and releasing this through him also brings legitimacy to the table that has nothing to do with the issue, or even the people pushing the issue. Its disingenuous, and there’s nothing on this planet I hate more than people who try to lie to you.
And, to set it straight, in case anyone was confused: I hate the Chinese government with a passion. I have genuine fury just thinking about them. That isn’t the point, and it never was.
Comment by Nathan Weinberg | May 3, 2007