There are lowercase evils and Uppercase Evils.

Google's "Don't Be Evil" catchphrase used to refer to lowercase evils -- separating advertising from organic search results, refusing to provide biased information at any price, and solving the user's problem first while monetizing later. All are worthwhile and commendable values that have served Google and Google's users well.

Google has extended its "Don't Be Evil" philosophy to audacious ambitions to "change the world." But these world-changing ideas so far have involved technical and engineering challenges more than political and moral quandries.

But now that cute and cuddly "Don't Be Evil" image has morphed into something far more serious and weighty. We're no longer talking about lowercase evils, but Uppercase Evils -- political censorship, political violence, oppression of dissidents, human rights, thought control. And not just in China, but in the United States and Western Europe as well.

Tragically, Google is attempting to solve lowercase evils (like the quality of the user experience) by committing Uppercase Evils, actively developing the technology to censor and bias search results in order to control political thought and expression. This point is important -- Google isn't just passively allowing others to do Evil, and they're not just complying with local laws and customs -- Google is actively developing the technology that strengthens the government's repressive grip.

Google's rationalization, that they're hoping to achieve some future openness through "engagement," is hogwash as long as that "engagement" requires Google to strengthen the tools of repression.

Certainly, there is plenty of moral ambiguity. It's not at all clear that Google's collaboration with the Chinese government will result in some squishy "greatest good for the greatest number." Maybe there could be future benefits to "engagement," or maybe Google has just become the last respected source of information to capitulate. There are certainly cultural differences as well, and Americans shouldn't blindly impose their values on other cultures. But there are also some universal truths that are shared across all cultures.

But even when there is moral ambiguity and an uncertain future, it is clear that for a company founded on the premise of free access to unbiased information, actively censoring legitimate political expression is Evil with an Uppercase E.

I believe it's not a problem with the Google logos as unique universal pseudomoral authority brand.
Unfortunately at stake the fate of genuine values or absolutes of Intellectual integrity of global Internet Freedom Empire as world Commons ethos initiated as far as US originated Arpanet MIT/BBN military science research launched in 60s-70s original webnet global leadership is totally contradicting to assumed moral consensus of Google's corporate elite reached not just on China Internet policy as professed by Google's founder Sergey Bryn in Davos to Fortune but assumed as global policy is true technological drama and cognitive fallacy trauma.

To explore the issue further I'd refer to my blog on Intellectual Freedom Paradygm which I post here http://logosophos.blogspot.com/

Human Rights paradygm is alternative approach to view Internet as ultimate medium of
intellectual freedom media and my objective is to discuss the essential problem how to define and how to defend intellectual freedom as fundamental human rights paradygm for internet media due to latest Google’s values compromise or controversy in China as well as with US government reveals that even entrepreneurial culture is morally corrupted with dominance of corporate authoritarian governance that plays well with dictatorian style draconian rules of China government China’s jailed leader of Tiananman Sq. Wang Dan who’s our test expert on China’s intellectual freedom thinks the internet has two influences. One is a good influence: Chinese people can have more information and have more contact.
But the second influence is a bad influence because it helps the government to control people because they can censor the internet. So it’s very important for the international community to try to stop government’s using the internet as a tool to censor the people.

NB Visual experience of Cultural revolution theater:

http://www.morningsun.org/living/movies/theater.swf
Cultural revolution execution and celebration clips:
http://www.tsquare.tv/media/crev.html
Clips of T-Squire:
http://www.tsquare.tv/media/june4.htmlnot prob    

Mickey Spiegel, senior researcher in the Asia division of Human Rights Watch (blocked by Google and Yahoo but not Microsoft), said Google.cn was "a step backwards in terms of freedom of expression issues."
"It will leave the Chinese populace with less and less ability to, in a sense, think for themselves about some of the issues facing them today," Spiegel said. "They are going to have a restricted diet of info, and that is going to color how they view the world. It's a big story, and it's a stain on their image."

It really is ironic that Google wants to feel free to censor content when it suits their business purposes, yet they squawk loudly when the phone companies bring up the notion of throttling bandwidth. You can’t condone censorship – even tacitly – and expect to be taken seriously when it comes to Internet neutrality. I suppose a response from Google would be expected?    

HUMAN RIGHTS PROBLEMS for Google, Yahoo & Cisco in China is at crossroads to becoma a global moral dillemma as you can see from a letter from Russia by ex-dissidents leaders who are appealling to
Yahoo's CEOs in reference to jailed chinese journalist Sho Tao:
http://www.hro.org/actions/2006/02/07.php

while themselves are protesting a new law against NGOs at KGB/FSB headquarters and elinks to photos
of demostration following:

http://www.hro.org/pics/piket_01_02_05/p1.jpg
http://www.hro.org/pics/piket_01_02_05/gazeta13.jpg
http://www.hro.org/pics/piket_01_02_05/r15.jpg


http://spaces.msn.com/technologos/



Dear Jerry Yang and David Filo,

I am writing to you to express my deep concern over recent
allegations that your company has assisted authorities in China
in events which led to the imprisonment of Shi Tao, a Chinese
journalist. On April 27, 2005, Shi Tao received a ten-year
prison term for sending information about a Communist Party
decision through his Yahoo email account to a website based in
the United States. Amnesty International considers him a
Prisoner of Conscience, as he was imprisoned for peacefully
exercising his right to freedom of expression and opinion.

I am alarmed that in the pursuit of new and lucrative markets,
your company is contributing to human rights violations. Yahoo
should urgently give consideration to the human rights
implications of its business operations. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights calls upon every organ of society,
which includes companies, to respect human rights.

Yahoo’s conduct in Shi Tao’s case has exposed your company to
the risk of being complicit in human rights violations. I
therefore call upon Yahoo to:

Use its influence to secure Shi Tao’s release Stop any actions
that could undermine human rights in any country in which you
operate Take immediate steps to ensure that all your units – the
parent corporation and subsidiaries – uphold human rights
responsibilities for companies, as outlined by the UN Norms for
Business Develop an explicit human rights policy, ensuring that
it
complies with the UN Norms for Business. Sincerely,

advise to elink to technologos webpage with filmed interview with chinese dissident Wang Dan whom I've mentioned and film interviews with russian exdissidents on 'back to USSR" future of Russia.

http://www16.brinkster.com/technologos/atechnologos.html