I can't even begin to think how Google could pull out of the US. I can't begin to imagine how the economy and markets would respond to that. Moreover, I doubt anyone at Google even has the authority to make such a move. I believe there's a clause somewhere that redistributes decision-making power, if the head has gone insane. Pulling out of the US, I would imagine, would constitute insanity to most shareholders.
On a second point, I don't even believe Google should have pulled out of China. This is clearly a moral judgment on my part. Baidu has replaced Google in China, and their censorship is just as bad, if not worse, than what Google would've been subjected to. I've been told that not doing anything, is just as bad as doing something bad - and I believe it. By pulling out, Google may have absolved itself from immediate guilt, but what's the end result? If they had stayed in, they could have at least had half a say in what was going on.
Lastly, there's a clear bias in sentiment towards the Patriot Act here, and in the highly intellectual community. I need to remind everyone that while sometimes it seems like we're the majority of the world, universities, start ups, and high-end jobs account for a small percentage of the world we're living in. Add to this, the fact that people remember disaster a thousand times longer and intensely than peace and prosperity, and I think the reasons for this act's existence comes into place. I don't particularly agree with the Patriot Act either, but I doubt it's something that will go away any time soon. Thus is the problem with short-term election democracy. Everyone's wondering how they can be re-elected in the short term, and stop caring about the long term.
Baidu has replaced Google in China, and their censorship is just as bad, if not worse
I disagree with you on that point, that's not far off from the sort of logic that it's not immoral to be a contract killer because if you weren't doing it, someone else would be hired and the target would die either way. Your logic isn't quite as basic, but you could extend to "if I let someone else be hired for this murder they might do it in a less humane way".
And, obviously, don't think I'm comparing web censorship with murder on the moral scale, just comparing the justification for being a part of something you disagree with.
That's a moral-judgment argument that's landing on the side of a slippery slope. I suppose, the best way to think about this is to address it by adding to it: If the market only has room for one contract killer, and you decide to only take on 75% of the clients who come to you, would it be better for you to stay in the business or let someone else take your place?
Obviously, you face a moral dilemma either way. You don't want to kill, but you can stop 25% of the people from dying, by continuing to kill. I see this as more the situation that Google was in, rather than a flat out replacement logic. Ultimately, I think which way we answer depends on how we see the world, and what moral principles we use to govern our own lives; I doubt everyone will agree on this.
True. Also worth remembering, however, is that you can't definitively say that their replacement is doing more/worse than Google would have done - after all, if Google weren't willing to walk away, that could ultimately mean complying with the Chinese government just as much as any other company - we just didn't see it get that bad because they did pull out before then.
On a second point, I don't even believe Google should have pulled out of China. This is clearly a moral judgment on my part. Baidu has replaced Google in China, and their censorship is just as bad, if not worse, than what Google would've been subjected to. I've been told that not doing anything, is just as bad as doing something bad - and I believe it. By pulling out, Google may have absolved itself from immediate guilt, but what's the end result? If they had stayed in, they could have at least had half a say in what was going on.
Lastly, there's a clear bias in sentiment towards the Patriot Act here, and in the highly intellectual community. I need to remind everyone that while sometimes it seems like we're the majority of the world, universities, start ups, and high-end jobs account for a small percentage of the world we're living in. Add to this, the fact that people remember disaster a thousand times longer and intensely than peace and prosperity, and I think the reasons for this act's existence comes into place. I don't particularly agree with the Patriot Act either, but I doubt it's something that will go away any time soon. Thus is the problem with short-term election democracy. Everyone's wondering how they can be re-elected in the short term, and stop caring about the long term.