The biggest media arrives in the biggest country

by frog

I’ve had a bit of a soft spot for Google, after all it’s only seven years old and its guiding principle is “Don’t do evil”.

But a couple of things have given me pause this week.

Writing (offline) in The Listener, Russell Brown reports:

By market capitalisation, the world’s biggest media company is Google. At the time of writing, the search company’s shares are trading at more than $US400, making the company’s total market value around $135 billion – slightly more than that of IBM.

[snip]

Now two US analysts …. suggest that on its current trajectory the company’s share price will eventually hit $2000, making Google the largest company in the world, without exception.

Such confidence is based not on Google’s current business, which lies almost entirely in online advertising, but on what it might have in store. It seems likely to follow the strategythat it has taken it thus far. Which is; Google has become the world’s biggest media company largely by outsourcing editorial

One version of what a Googlisied future may be like is Robin Sloan and Matt Thompson’s online short film Epic 2014, well worth a look if you haven’t seen it already.

OK, so size may, just once, not be a bad thing, particularly if they’re ‘doing no evil’ and are in a position to challenge some areas of Microsoft’s market domination (though, a two-party state is not that different from a one-party state).

But my scepticism on Google has been heightened today by their move into China. Reuters reports:

Internet search giant Google Inc will block politically sensitive terms on its new China site, bowing to conditions set by Beijing in return for access to the world’s number-two internet market.

[snip]

“In order to operate from China, we have removed some content from the search results available on Google.cn in response to local law, regulation or policy,” Andrew McLaughlin, Google’s senior policy counsel, said in a statement.

“While removing search results is inconsistent with Google’s mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission.”

Okay, so they’re facing a tough balancing act. And I have to say, that I accept that round the edges some circumstance-specific censorship is probably unavoidable. Ironically, democracy sometimes depends on it. And it helps if the fact that censorship is happening is notified. Reuters again:

Google officials said they planned to notify users of its Google.cn service when the company has restricted access to certain search terms or the websites behind them.

In different political circumstances, Google also notifies users of its German, French and US services when it blocks access to material such as banned Nazi sites in Europe.

But doing the Chinese Government’s bidding is always going to be problematic and doing business with China shows no sign of changing their political system, as market and engagement advocates once regularly claimed. If anything China demonstrates that *free enterprise* doesn’t need democratic freedom to flourish, in fact it rather prefers a compliant populace.

And I have to wonder whether the search term “Rod Donald” + Tibet flag will be allowed in China.

frog says

Published in Media by frog on Thu, January 26th, 2006   

Tags:

More posts by frog | more about frog