PERSPECTIVES6 February 11, 2010 � Mount Holyoke News

Google’s Jan. 12 declaration that itmight cease operations in China and pos-sibly shut downGoogle.cn has stirred nu-merous debates about whether Googleshould place business profits ahead ofdemocratic ideology when facing censor-ship. It raises a question that affectsother cyber companies: who is going totake charge of Google’s 30-percent mar-ket share if the search giant pulls out ofChina?

Google’s threat to pull out of theworld’s biggest Internet market of 330million users, according to researchgroup Analysis International, has beenquestioned globally. Although the num-ber of users andmarket share in China ishigh, the profits made account only forthree percent of Google’s total annualrevenue. That is why Google’s headquar-ters insist the company has nothing tolose from pulling out of the market andreports that its decision was made solelybased on Chinese censorship issues.

“If Google is only going to lose abouttwo percent of its total revenue then it be-comes a matter of propaganda,” said his-tory professor Jonathan Lipman aboutthe search engine's recent announce-ment. “Is it better for Google to storevirtue points andmake good propagandaoutside of China by pulling out and losingthat two percent, or is that two percentimportant enough to have a negativepropaganda impact in U.S. and in Europewhere people will say, ‘Oh you cowards!You are buckling under to the totalitarianpower in China for your own benefits?’”Lipman emphasized the fact that bothbusiness profits and “virtue points” are

critical for technology companies likeGoogle.

On its official blog Google blamedcensorship restrictions for a potentialwithdrawal. “We have decided we are nolonger willing to continue censoring ourresults on Google.cn,” wrote DavidDrummond, Google’s corporate develop-ment and chief legal officer. But the com-pany has fought bitterly for itsthirty-percent market share for years,dealing with pressures from both the Chi-nese government and other domesticcyber companies. Google's market inChina also expanded with newer techno-logical developments, including the An-droid operating system on 3G mobilephones.

Now Baidu, China’s domestic Inter-net search engine, seems to be thebiggest competitor to Google. Sogou andSoso are also potential candidates for apiece in the search engine market. Majorsearch engines are, no doubt, waiting forGoogle’s final decision and have alreadydeveloped complex plans about manage-ment of China’s search engine marketafter a potential Google withdrawal.

Microsoft and Yahoo, the other twoleaders of the Global Network Initiative(GNI), also won’t align with Google in apotential withdrawal. Although partner-ing with Google in the GNI, Yahoo andMicrosoft both plan to continue operatingin China.

The implications of Google’s move forother technology firms in China are stillto be seen. But for Google, as ProfessorLipman observed, the question that re-mains is how to “balance public interestand public image with profits.”

Who will take Google’s share in the Chinese market?BY CHU WANG ’12STAFF WRITER

What most of us will consider a personal right togather and share information or express viewpoints onthe World Wide Web is actually a privilege for citizens inseveral countries across Asia including Singapore, Viet-nam, China andMalaysia. The governments of these coun-tries impose limits and restrictions on what their citizensare allowed to do online, on the basis thatWeb sites, blogsor forum comments could potentially encourage socialdisharmony amongst the citizens, and in some cases countas sedition against the government.

In the summer of 2008, the Chinese govern-ment banned Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.The bans took place following the riots that oc-curred in Xinjiang, drawing speculations thatthe Chinese government intended to restrictthe flow of information online regarding thesepolitically sensitive issues. China’s governmentalso blocked all Google services, includingGmail, Google Apps and Google Talk, twoweeks before the Facebook ban transpired. In-terestingly, China’s local Web services such associal networking site renren.com andyouku.com, a video sharingWeb site similar toYouTube, remained available for use. “I’d saythat these sites are very clear on the Chinesegovernment’s policy (on internet censorship),thus they prevent (certain kinds of) informationfrom being posted,” said Lingyue Yang ’12about Renren and Youku.

Search results from foreign web serviceshave also been tweaked by the Chinese govern-ment, and Yang elaborates that until the gov-ernment is able to block specifically unwantedinformation, a potentially controversial Website will simply not be accessible to Internetusers. Blogs, posts and comments are automatically fil-tered as the Chinese government has developed methodsof blocking words and phrases such as “Mao” and “TibetIndependence”. “The system can detect the words thatyou use in your blog or comment,” said Yang. “If it detectssuch words, then you will not be able to post your com-ment unless you make (the necessary) changes.”

British newspaper The Independent speculated thatVietnam could be taking a leaf out of China’s book as its

government also banned Facebook in late 2009. Themediain Vietnam is state-controlled with the government imple-menting regulations that prohibit citizens from bloggingabout highly sensitive issues and political discussions, ac-cording to an MSNBC report online in late 2008. The Viet-namese government encourages netizens to blog aboutpersonal issues instead, and expects Internet companiesto filter blogs and remove posts that the governmentdeems harmful. Aside from that, Internet companieswhich provide blogging platforms to users are required toprovide bloggers’ information to the government upon re-quest and are to report to the government every six

months.In this tradition of restricting freedom of Internet

speech, the Malaysian government attempted to shutdown an independent local online news portal calledMalaysiakini in January 2003. The government was dis-satisfied with an anonymous letter published byMalaysi-akini that accused the government of racialdiscrimination. Based on reports from the online newsportal, politician Azimi Daim called the letter “malicious”

in its accusations that the government was ignoring theinterests of Malaysia’s indigenous people. Despite pres-sure from the government and police investigators,Malaysiakini’s editor refused to breach journalism ethicsby revealing the identity of the letter writer, who hadwished to remain anonymous. As a result, the policeseized 15 of Malaysiakini’s central processing units andfour of its servers.

Down south, in neighboring Singapore, the govern-ment sentenced two people to jail in 2005 and arrestedthree youths earlier this month for alleged acts of sedition.Channel News Asia reported in October 2005 that the two

defendants were charged under the Sedi-tion Act for posting racist remarks on-line. Onewas sentenced to amonth in jailwhile the other served a day in jail and amaximum fine of SGD $5,000 (USD $3515).

Following more recent develop-ments, three Singaporean youths werearrested by the police on February 3 forposting supposedly racist remarks onFacebook.While they have since been re-leased on bail, investigations are still on-going. Although the youths are onlybetween the ages of 17 and 18, they maybe fined or jailed for up to three yearsunder the Singaporean law.

The Singaporean government moni-tors their “netizens” through the MediaDevelopment Authority (MDA). TheMDA, a board under the SingaporeanMinistry of Information, Communicationand the Arts, functions as a censor of thenation’s media, includingWeb sites. Sin-gaporeans do not have access to a list ofapproximately 100 MDA banned web-sites, many of which are predominantly

pornographic sites. However, one or twoWeb sites on theblacklist are regarded as sites that promote religious ex-tremism.

It is a complex dynamic between governments and on-line freedom of speech. “I think the government fears thecollapse of the communist party,” said Yang about the pro-lific internet censorship in China.” They don’t want theirown people to see ‘the other side’ of the government,” sheadded.

Governments censor online content in AsiaBY EMILY CHOW ’12STAFF WRITER

Perspectives 2.11.10:Layout 1 2/16/10 5:16 PM Page 1

PERSPECTIVES 7February 11, 2010 � Mount Holyoke News

Search-engine-turned-tech-giant Google has recentlychanged its policy on censorship of search results in China,following a December infrastructure attack on Chinese

human rights activists. The incident, as Google outlined in a blog posted on Jan. 12, af-fected over 20 companies and was primarily focused on gaining access to the Gmail ac-counts of several Chinese activists. The company announced that it will no longer censorsearch results on its Google.cnWeb site, and is prepared to pull out of the country if Chinais not willing to accept such a decision.

China has a long history of Internet censorship. It is in the middle of a nationwidepornography crackdown, and its massive firewall, which blocks among other things im-ages of the Tianamen Square massacre, has been nicknamed the Great Firewall of China.Until recently, Google went along with this policy—after all, business is business, despitethe irony that Google’s slogan reads “Don’t be evil.” However, this (long overdue, in theeyes of many) decision to stop playing along with Chinese censorship could have game-changing effects on both the company’s future and the future of global censorship.

Technically, Google lacks any power to force or even coerce China to change its policy.There is little chance that China is going to back down. After all, ne step in that directionwould lead to calls for even more policy changes, and, as was witnessed in the former So-viet Union, that is a slippery slope to the downfall of a government. However, Google’sannouncement has served to remind the global community that China is still enforcing itsbackwards policy, strongly criticized bymanyworld governments. This may also pressureChina to look into the identities of those who carried it out.

It is unlikely that anything solid will come out of this announcement. Google will likelywithdraw from China, unless the contry makes some concessions—which, frankly, is un-likely. China will most likely not initiate any steps toward relaxation of its censorship stan-dards. However, now that the global community has refocused its attention on thecountry’s rampant censorship, things might start moving in the right direction. In thelong run, a nation that is willing to deprive its citizens of information andmodern technol-ogy cannot stand.

ALL EYES ON CHINA

BY LAUREN THEURER ’12STAFF WRITER

What do you have in common with a collegegirl in France or China? Probably more than youthink. Chances are that you get your clothesfrom the same stores, meet your friends at thesame restaurants, watch the samemovies, listento the same music, and read the same maga-zines.

In an increasingly globalized economy, theinfiltration of different market sectors into di-verse societies is undeniable. The turn of the 21stcentury heralds an array of market chains crop-ping up in different geographic locations, whilemeeting consumers’ needs with a sense of famil-iarity. Connectivity and simultaneous deliveryof similar services are dispersed among differentsocieties. The clothing retailer H&M, for in-stance, is as popular in Europe as it is in NorthAmerica; Starbucks tastes the same in Seattle asit does in Beijing; and Katy Perry sells music tomillions in Turin, Tokyo and Toronto.

Though working towards a global customerbase, not all market chains follow the same di-rection.

One approach is an experiment with culturalcoexistence.Vapiano, for example, is a sharedpop culture that has helped hip and more up-scale chains, such as Starbucks become popularworldwide. This German restaurant chain offersdelightful Italian cuisine at fast-food prices in 18countries, including the United Arab Emirates,Korea, and the U.S. Equally appreciated in allcountries, Vapiano achieved success that can beattributed to its fusion of modern chic and Italiancuisine. Every restaurant follows a similarsetup—a coffeeshop area with an Italianespresso bar, furnished with comfortable stylishchairs, and a restaurant area with communal tables and food, where guests observe thecreation of their dishes. It is a chain that connects good food and cosmopolitan atmos-

phere with sleek interior design.Other chains adopt a different approach.

They do not rely only on the success of a sharedculture, but instead offer products tailored tothe culture they want to enter. McDonalds, aglobal fast food business, serves its burgers indifferent ways, depending onwhich country youare in. In Switzerland, the “Big Tasty” is cur-rently the burger of the month; in Russia, therestaurants offer the “Russian Sunday,” whichtakes on traditional Russian recipes; and inFrance, restaurants lure new costumers in byoffering downsized items like the p'tit wrap, oralso known as the “little wrap.”

While Starbucks offers the same drinks andsnacks all over the world, often not adapting itsmenu to the host country’s language, McDon-ald’s coffeeshop branch McCafé offers a mix oftreats tailored to the respective country’s her-itage. McCafé sells Tartelettes and croissants inFrance and stuffed pastry and pies in Russia.

Cultural remixes go beyond chain restau-rants to penetrate different areas of popular cul-ture. A prominent example from Japan isbaseball. Brought to the Japanese islands byAmerican soldiers after the SecondWorldWar,baseball has evolved into a new national sport.Now the Japanese are about as obsessed withbaseball as Americans are. Most high schools inJapan have popular baseball teams and oldAmerican star players retire in Japan wherethey are celebrated as heroes. China is similarlyobsessed with basketball although their ownleague is not yet very strong.

Why are some cultural practices from othercountries assimilated into a culture and becomethus a part of the whole?Why are others simplyaccepted and coexist next to older traditions?And why do some fail completely? The answer

to this question is still to be found, but it proves that culture is a living, breathing and ver-satile concept.

BY MARION MESSMER ’13STAFF WRITER

The image of for-eign companiespenetrating do-

mestic markets has been abit romanticized. A gen-eral assumption is thatforeign chain stores caneasily make huge profitsthanks to low-cost laborand strong support fromthe companies’ headquar-ters. But is this really so?

One thing which for-eign companies can nevershake off is their identity.Foreign chain stores—nomatter what goods theyhave on their shelves,where their employeescome from or what kind ofservices they provide—have always been viewedas representative of theiroriginal nations. Thus,they, may become espe-cially vulnerable undercertain unexpected andunpleasant situations,sometimes even becomingscapegoats.

One recent case thatdemonstrates this dy-

namic pertains to Car-refour, a world-renown re-tail seller from France.When rumors wentaround before the sum-mer of the 2008 BeijingOlympics Games that amajor Carrefour share-holder, LMVH, had do-nated large sums ofmoney to the Dalai Lama,Carrefour saw a numberof large-scale boycotts inits Chinese market. Insome instances peopledemonstrated inside thestores. While foreignchain stores may be “lo-calized” to a large extent,they will never get rid ofwhat their companies’names and headquarters’locations suggest.

Cultural assimilationplays a fundamental rolein the success of chainstores abroad. Even theworld's largest retailer,Wal-Mart met significantresistance when it tried todevelop its market inIndia, where about 150

million small retail storesmake up a gigantic retailmarket. Several factors,including domestic lawsand policies, complicatedWal-Mart’s entry intoIndia. Other foreign corpo-rations, on the other hand,acutely tailored theirproducts to domestic con-sumers’ preferences.When Google and Baidu,twomajor search engines,got into a battle for domi-nation of China’s Internetmarket, Baidu, thoughhardly a domestic corpo-ration itself, pretended tobe one and spread mes-sages supporting domes-tic industry in an attemptto win over consumers.Though there are cer-tainly many other factorsleading to Google’s failurein China, there is no deny-ing that “domestic indus-try” has proven to be amagical phrase under var-ious situations.

Chain stores need tocope with different con-sumer habits and culturaldifferences when pene-trating foreign markets.Thoughmost of them havebeen doing a great job, it isdebatable whether the pic-ture is as clear and rosy aswhat is generally as-sumed.

As storesexpand abroad,ideologies clashBY JING GAO ’13STAFF WRITER

Global discontent rises as Chinamaintains Internet restrictions

“A nation that is willing to deprive itscitizens of information and modern

technology cannot stand.”

WHERE POPULAR MEETS TRADITIONAL

CULTURE:REMIXING

Perspectives 2.11.10:Layout 1 2/16/10 5:16 PM Page 2