Many, if not most, of you here know that one of Google's corporate mantras is "Don't be evil." Some of our critics – and even a few of our friends – think that phrase arrogant, or naïve or both. It's not. It's an admonition that reminds us to consider the moral and ethical implications of every single business decision we make.
We believe that our current approach to China is consistent with this mantra. Our hope is that our mix of measures, though far from our ideal, would accomplish more for Chinese citizens' access to information than the alternative. We don't pretend that this is the single "right" answer to the dilemma faced by information companies in China, but rather a reasonable approach that seems likely to bring our users greater access to more information than any other search engine in China. And by serving our users better, we hope it will be good for our business, too, over the long run.
Google made compelling arguments in their well spoken and refreshingly honest and direct remarks. But aren't some things so wrong that they cannot be rationalized away? To devote scarce engineering talent to develop technology to control political thought and discussion is prima facie evil.
As a friend (and as a Google shareholder), I've got to say that the "Don't be evil" ethic isn't arrogant or naïve. Indeed, it's the essence of Google's competitive advantage. But by compromising their principles, Google has not only strengthened the ability of the Chinese government control political expression, Google has weakened their brand, moral authority and competitive advantage.
The beauty of the 'Don't be evil' mantra is its simplicity and obviousness. When people start making complex and specious arguments, applying the 'Don't be evil' test cuts through the BS. If Google truly applied the 'Don't be evil' test in that simple, direct and obvious way, it would be clear to all that censorship is most certainly not consistent with Google's corporate motto.