There's a case to be made for providing more net information while being less than 100 percent morally pure in the process.
The choice we're confronted with isn't "uncensored vs censored". It's "more information and access vs less information and access".
It's a practical call. Chinese people are very practical, they'll figure it out.
Everyone is equal on some level just by being human. They are inherently worth treating well. That includes freedom from death and harm. But that also includes freedom of thought, conscience, and expression.
Docs, Hangouts, YouTube. All very difficult to censor. Its whack a mole, complicated by https. Information wants to be free.
Standing on principle here denies them that 99%. Are you going to make that call for them, or should they make it for themselves?
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/asia/china-organ-harvesting/
As is deliberately killing pedestrians after accidentally injuring them in order to pay a lessor death benefit instead of expensive care.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...
Im not worried about their practicality but rather that they are culturally morally bankrupt and revealing how morally bankrupt people like Google are.
The government is, for sure. However, it's the legal system's fault for letting the punishment of injury outweigh the punishment of manslaughter.
Furthermore, it's not as if Google has gone out of its way get into a position of censoring search results in China. Those search results are going to be censored no matter what. What Google does, whether they operate in China or not, doesn't effect that. All that changes is how much search-engine-generated money goes to Google or doesn't.
Ban me for calling it.
At the time I posted, the comment explicitly calling all chinese people "morally bankrupt" was 6 hours old and it was not gray.
Apologies for my overheated response.
Moreover, if you post another national or racial slur, like you did here and confirmed below, we will ban you.