*sigh*
One month ago, I wondered - naively, of course - if ethics had at last penetrated the world of Capitalism. Still, it was a nice daydream while it lasted.
From the department of premature congratulations: One of China's best-known artists and activists just spoke out in support of Google's "decision" to stop censoring search results inside the world's most populous nation. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece headlined "Google Gives Us Hope," Al Weiwei also said two of his Gmail …
I was telling people at the time that I'll believe Google when I see them do it. Google is now proving the axiom that "business and ethics have nothing to do with each other" is their axiom as it is with many other's running major corporations. Doubtful Google's Execs would actually buck that trend.
They advertised themselves well - they got reports in all the major news bulletins, column inches in the broadsheets and tabloids, even satirical shows like Radio4's News quiz featured articles on google's defiant stance against the evils of a dictatorship. And then they do nothing, and only, no disrespect intended, only limited, special interest news sources report it, so as far as Joe Public is concerned, Google is great.
"Anyone here work in marketting? Kill yourself. No, seriously, I mean it, kill yourselves. It's the only way to save your souls" © Bill Hicks
>hot-button issues such as the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989<
Sorry, but that's not a 'hot button issue' it was simply a massacre, tho, not knowing how many were 'purged', maybe better to call it 'The Big Lie'.
As for Google doing, or not doing, business with China, they are precisely the same as every other big business, they'll follow the money, no matter how murky the path. They, at least, unlike 20 other big business' told the world they'd been hacked and that China has human rights 'issues'.
I don't see the USA or UK governments threatening to stop business with a regime that ruthlessly murders or disappears its citizens and invade non oil producing countries.
The problem went like this
New Chairman made things more free and opened up the markets
Students took this as an opportunity to push for more
Chairman had to draw a line
Students refused to back down
In the end the people with the tanks win, but a man that had aimed to free China of many of its restrictions had to leave his role as Chairman becouse the students refused to negotiate.
If Obama can get one for something he hasn't done yet I guess the Google guys can take a shot at it as well (unless it was for getting rid of Bush, you can't do that twice).
Other than that, well, what did I say from the moment I heard this?
It wasn't even hard to work out, so I'm rather disappointed so many papers joined the screeching (not El Reg, I note) but hey, it's not like manipulating stock price is a new thing, is it?