Google Succumbs To Self-Censorship In China
With the announcement of its new deal with China, Google has become the latest corporation to cave in to the dubious pseudo-ethics of economic globalization. Call it the "New World Order" if you want, but whatever you call it "it" has arrived.
It is virtually impossible for international businesses to adopt a "one size fits all" ethical standard when each national market sets conflicting standards and restrictions.
In the case of China and Google, the mega-search engine giant agreed to China's demands that a long list of subjects (such as "Tianamen Square" and "Taiwan Independence") be blocked.
There is precedent for this, of course. In Germany, for example, Google already blocks Nazi-related items for sale from its search engine in accordance with German law.
In many countries a precondition for doing business has been to offer bribes to certain favored individuals within the government. Most international corporations have entered into such agreements willingly and wholeheartedly in order to gain the advantage over competitors.
Faust learned that there is a way that one can sell his soul. In the area of international business there are innumerable ways.
While such business dealings may increase the corporate "bottom line" it is the average person on the street (who number in the billions) who become the losers. Corrupt and despotic regimes are propped up by such business practices. Personal freedom to acheive success and self-sufficiency are almost always crushed.
In the end, the world, taken as a whole, is the big loser in these international transactions.
It reminds me of the man offered $ 10,000 to kill someone. He took the money with a clear conscience because, as he put it, "The person was going to be killed anyway, by somebody. So I figured that I might as well get the money instead of them."
That, my friends, is as good a summary of the transaction of international business as I have found.
Google is simply the latest example.
Some company was going to get the China contract anyway, so it might as well be . . . well, you get the idea.
It is virtually impossible for international businesses to adopt a "one size fits all" ethical standard when each national market sets conflicting standards and restrictions.
In the case of China and Google, the mega-search engine giant agreed to China's demands that a long list of subjects (such as "Tianamen Square" and "Taiwan Independence") be blocked.
There is precedent for this, of course. In Germany, for example, Google already blocks Nazi-related items for sale from its search engine in accordance with German law.
In many countries a precondition for doing business has been to offer bribes to certain favored individuals within the government. Most international corporations have entered into such agreements willingly and wholeheartedly in order to gain the advantage over competitors.
Faust learned that there is a way that one can sell his soul. In the area of international business there are innumerable ways.
While such business dealings may increase the corporate "bottom line" it is the average person on the street (who number in the billions) who become the losers. Corrupt and despotic regimes are propped up by such business practices. Personal freedom to acheive success and self-sufficiency are almost always crushed.
In the end, the world, taken as a whole, is the big loser in these international transactions.
It reminds me of the man offered $ 10,000 to kill someone. He took the money with a clear conscience because, as he put it, "The person was going to be killed anyway, by somebody. So I figured that I might as well get the money instead of them."
That, my friends, is as good a summary of the transaction of international business as I have found.
Google is simply the latest example.
Some company was going to get the China contract anyway, so it might as well be . . . well, you get the idea.
<< Home