Besides the implicit endorsement, does it really change anything on the ground? Existing search engines are already censored in China, and those that wish to bypass via VPN, can still do so after Google releases their censored version.
It doesn't matter if it changes anything. It's about having principles and standing for something. We're a part of this world, and we have a duty to do the things we think are right. Not everything in life is a god damn utility maximization function. Sometimes you have to do the right thing because you want others to act the same way you do, and because it's wrong to build tools for future totalitarian rulers.
My primary motivation is fighting these types of capitulations becoming precedents. If an American tech company will willfully aid the CCP in preventing information on human rights from spreading and build tools for a nationwide dragnet, what would they ever stand up for?
This is such a weird argument when applied to other areas. “Does it really change anything on the ground? Someone else will make the ovens and gas chambers?”
“Does it really change anything on the ground? Someone else will assassinate Archduke Ferdinand?”
Etc. being morally opposed to something and trying to abstain from supporting it is not the same as campaigning against something’s existence. I wouldn’t work for a bomb company, but I’m not trying to shut down Lockheed Martin.
There’s many different moral systems. Some people are trying to not make things worse. Others are doing different things. It’s ok that there are gradations.
Well, China used to execute prisoners on demand if organ donations were needed. While not up there with the extermination of an entire religion, it is quite an impressive level of exploitation.
They also imprison a large amount of people in re-education camps.
