Andrew McLaughlin, senior policy counsel at Google, blogged today about the rationale behind Google's new censorship of search results in China. Kudos to Google for engaging in a thoughtful and straightforward discussion of this highly charged topic.

It's clear that Google executives struggled mightily with this decision. And to their credit, Google makes no attempt to disguise or minimize what they've done. McLaughlin clearly states that censorship compromises Google's mission.

For several years, we've debated whether entering the Chinese market at this point in history could be consistent with our mission and values.

But McLaughlin rationalizes by saying that the alternative would require an even greater compromise:

Filtering our search results clearly compromises our mission. Failing to offer Google search at all to a fifth of the world's population, however, does so far more severely. Whether our critics agree with our decision or not, due to the severe quality problems faced by users trying to access Google.com from within China, this is precisely the choice we believe we faced.

Now, this isn't entirely accurate. McLaughlin's statements at the beginning of the post show that this isn't really about "failing to offer Google search at all." The main issue is the need to improve the user experience:

Google.com appears to be down around 10% of the time. Even when users can reach it, the website is slow, and sometimes produces results that when clicked on, stall out the user's browser. Our Google News service is never available; Google Images is accessible only half the time. At Google we work hard to create a great experience for our users, and the level of service we've been able to provide in China is not something we're proud of.

McLaughlin's primary argument is that enabling the Chinese government to censor news and information allows for Google's "continued engagement," which could in the future lead to greater openness. This reasoning may allow McLaughlin to sleep at night, believing that Google can continue to prosper while being a force for good in the world.

But it appears to this observer that Google's collaboration with the Chinese government will legitimize a truly abhorent practice in China, and weaken much of Google's moral leadership in the rest of the world. Google could have done more good by adhering to its principles and setting the gold standard for the rest of the media industry. And by maintaining its pristine brand, Google might have prospered more than by joining the crowd of valueless corporations.

"Don't Be Evil" worked because it was absolute. While other companies employed moral relativism to justify evil practices, Google avoided these traps. Sadly, moral clarity at Google is now gone, and with it that special quality that made Google what it is today.