Role Of Search Engines In China

In China, the Chinese Government’s internet censorship policy has raised international concern about freedom of expression and human rights violations in a country that has historically obstructed the free flow of information. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Internet censorship regime employed by the Chinese government is the complicity of major American companies in facilitating the process. Any U.S. company who chooses to do business there is going to be stuck in a very hard position of trying to figure out how to handle the repressive Chinese regime, particularly with respect to civil rights, civil liberties and human rights, while doing business there. Ultimately, U.S. companies in China face a choice: follow Chinese law, or leave. Although operating in China may benefit the stakeholders and improve global reach, I believe that the U.S. internet companies have a social and ethical duty to withdraw from operations in China if it requires the prevention of freedom of expression and pursuit of knowledge even if they must forgo profit.

In order to discuss any social or ethical duties a U.S. internet company must perform, it is necessary to define the public function and responsibility of a U.S. internet company. Internet search engines hold a privileged place in the realm of information technology. They are like gates to the web and tend to be largely ignored because we are focused on what we get through them. Unlike gates, it is much more difficult to tell when search engines are providing distorted or incomplete pictures.

The first main function of the internet search engine companies is to assemble and organize the Web’s information. The vast amount of information available on the Web would be almost useless without search engines, since they are integral in access to information. The challenge in information retrieval is not simply to find the right piece of information, but also to avoid listing all the pieces of extraneous information. Without these internet search engine companies, much of the web would consequently be inaccessible to us, severely limiting our capability to learn.

The second function of internet search engines is to facilitate responsible citizenship by provide access to crucial information. Citizens in the global community cannot make informed decisions without access to accurate and complete information. And if they make uninformed decisions, they are not fulfilling their role as a “good citizen”, one who makes decisions to most increase the welfare of himself and society around him. Within the last decade, the internet has become the favored source of information retrieval. When we want to find more information about a topic, we first turn the closest library of information, the one in our homes: Google. The internet has become the principal source of research information for most Americans who want to know current events or do casual research. Thus, internet companies now serve as a gate for citizens to access the information that will allow them to perform their role as good, contributing citizen who will make better decisions based on acquired information.

The last function of a search engine is to maximize shareholder benefit. Search engines, such as Google and Yahoo!, are owned by private corporations, businesses whose purpose is to make a profit. These companies, especially Google since it has become a staple in the lives of millions, have a crucial public responsibility but are accountable to shareholders, not the general public. This sets up a friction between the public role of search engines, to access information and to promote responsible citizenship, and their corporate accountability, to do whatever it takes to increase shareholder welfare.

To accurately evaluate this business dilemma, it is important to realize here the degree of cooperation that China has gotten from the West in its Internet filtering programs. Much of the backbone of China's internet has been supplied by US internet companies who have altered their policy to be more agreeable to foreign demand. For example, when the Chinese government began to shut erratically down access from within China to the China Edition of Google News, Google decided to form its search results within China to meet the standards of the Chinese government. Google decided to respect the Chinese political censorship rather than allow it to be shut down once again. If all U.S. internet companies took this as rule and as acceptable business practice, one can rationalize that U.S. internet companies could eventually be much more strongly influenced by an increasingly controlling U.S. government, which has much more economic and political power on these companies than does the government of China.

If U.S. internet companies adopted the belief that it is always in its best interest to operate in a foreign country if it increases the welfare of its shareholders and to treat local law as an uncontrollable external variable that must be ignored as a rule, one can easily see that this can lead to corporate practices detrimental to society and against the beliefs of freedom and liberty under which these companies operate. What if China law mandated US internet companies to cooperate in strictly separating search results based on racial identity? Or in an extreme case, would it be ethical to operate in China if employees of the company had to kill those of a certain religious affiliation by law? History has proven that most rational and moral humans agree that discrimination on the basis of racial orientation, and even more obvious the murder of other innocent humans, is unethical and a serious breach of human rights. Thus, if US internet companies were to follow a consequentialist view and believe that foreign law should blindly be taken as rule when conducting business in foreign borders, moral and civil misconduct would be endorsed as a means to an end and society would suffer.

Certainly, there are counterarguments to these claims. Proponents